Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON UNDERGROUND (JUBILEE) BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT
SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL
(By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 25 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Shotguns

Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to initiate a review of the law on shotguns.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): Controls on shotguns were strengthened under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. The firearms consultative committee has a statutory duty to keep the controls of the Firearms Acts under constant review and make proposals to my right hon. and learned Friend as it considers necessary.

Mr. Milburn: Is the Minister aware that the number of shotgun offences in the northern region has more than doubled in the past six years? Is he concerned at the fact that the existing laws allow a shotgun certificate to be obtained without a person either giving good justification or undergoing proper training? Does he believe that it is in the public interest that children as young as 12 are allowed, legally, to hold a shotgun certificate? When will the Minister bring forward proper proposals to protect the public better from lethal weapons?

Mr. Wardle: I am aware of the increase in the number of offences involving weapons. However, it is worth bearing in mind that out of all the recorded incidents in 1990, only 0.2 per cent. involved the use of such weapons. I have seen the hon. Gentleman's early-day motion. Of course, he will understand that I cannot comment on the incident in Darlington because it is under investigation by the Police Complaints Authority. The consultative committee has a statutory duty to keep the law under constant review. In the debates we had before the enactment of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, consideration was given to placing shotguns under section 1 control. It was decided not to do that and that controls were best left in the hands of the police. The chief officer of a police force is empowered to withhold a licence if he believes that the public will be at risk or that the person applying for a certificate is unsuitable. The controls have been strengthened.

Identity Cards

Sir John Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further consideration has been given to the introduction of identity cards; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am not at present persuaded of the case for a national identity card system.

Sir John Hunt: My right hon. and learned Friend's reply is a bit disappointing. Is he aware that there is growing support in the country and, I believe, in the House for a system of identity cards as a means of combating fraud, terrorism and illegal immigration? As most of us


carry a variety of plastic cards at all times, what is the possible objection to another one, with a photograph, which would add to our safety and security?

Mr. Clarke: I said in my reply that I was not at present persuaded, but, obviously, my hon. Friend will try to persuade me in the course of time. The last time the Government considered this issue we were simply not satisfied that there were any great advantages, from the law enforcement point of view, in introducing a national identity card system. That was then the opinion of most people in the police service. However, I am aware that, recently the Association of Chief Police Officers offered a rather different opinion when it gave evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I hope that it will send its representations to me and work out in more detail what value it thinks such a system might have for law enforcement. At the moment, I do not see that case.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Home Secretary aware that Labour Members are certainly not persuaded that there is any justification for such a scheme? It would be extremely unfortunate if in peacetime, despite terrorism, identity cards were reintroduced in this country. Some of us might consider that that is another continental idea that we can well do without in Britain.

Mr. Clarke: Countries on the continent are divided on the issue. Eight European Community countries have identity cards and four do not. The bulk of people in Britain are prepared to support anything that helps the police and other authorities in their proper work of law enforcement and detecting crime. We must be persuaded that identity cards would be of substantial help to them and that they would be used in a way that did not damage relationships between the police and any section of the community.

Mr. James Hill: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the first point that the police must establish is identification? What better way is there to make that identification than through an identity card with a photograph, and even a fingerprint, which would enable us to go back to the days when people were identifiable. That would surely help the police.

Mr. Clarke: All of us are used to having to produce some modest proof of identification on a number of occasions. Most people do not object to producing their driving licences or credit cards for someone who is entitled to ask to see them. A national identity card scheme would have to be much more secure, and a cost and difficulties would be involved in issuing identity cards. The police would have to put a case forward for saying that there was a sufficient problem in identifying people to make it necessary to go to those lengths.

Mr. Darling: Does the Home Secretary accept that a compulsory requirement to carry identity cards would be the subject of deep resentment for many people? Has he had any discussions with his European counterparts about the possibility of compulsory ID cards being introduced in the European Community after the removal of frontiers in continental Europe? I appreciate that we shall maintain our frontiers—the right hon. and learned Gentleman has our support—but what is the position on the carrying of identity cards by British citizens in this country and in continental Europe?

Mr. Clarke: As usual, the House is accurately representing the range of views on whether people would object to carrying identity cards in this country. In the first place, it all depends on whether anybody can make a satisfactory case for carrying them from a law enforcement point of view. We shall then look at the objections that might arise.
There is no pressure on us to introduce a European-wide identity card and no such suggestion is coming from our partners in the Community. I have explained to our partners that, from the point of view of immigration control, we believe that we are entitled to continue to rely on our present system of frontier controls, and that is what we shall do.

Mr. Ashby: My right hon. and learned Friend must look at the reality of the situation. When internal frontiers disappear, as undoubtedly they will, a form of smart identity card will have to be introduced. Is this not the time to start planning for that? We should be going ahead with such a scheme for that, if for no other, reason.

Mr. Clarke: We stand ready to sign an external frontiers convention when the Spanish withdraw their objections to one of its provisions. But that will not provide the European Community with some impregnable external frontier which will obviate the need for internal controls from the point of view of illegal immigration, terrorism, drugs and other matters. We are satisfied that we are entitled, under our treaty obligations, to retain our present system of frontier controls and that is what we propose to do. We are not looking at identity cards in that context at this time.

Young Offenders

Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the penal institutions for young offenders which Home Office Ministers have visited in the last 12 months.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): The young offender institutions visited in the last 12 months were Portland, New Hall, Finnamore Wood, Moorland, Northallerton, Feltham, Drake Hall and Huntercombe.

Miss Lestor: Those visits having been made, the hon. Gentleman must be aware of the enormous concern that is felt by specialist groups and others about the conditions under which some young men are being held, with a lack of educational and recreational facilities and a lack of specialist psychiatric treatment. Is he aware that if we are to avoid more suicides and attempted suicides among people at a very vulnerable age, more measures must be taken now to ensure that proper accommodation and facilities are provided, particularly for the very young?

Mr. Lloyd: Much of the accommodation is extremely good, as the hon. Lady would know if she visited some of the establishments. There are, of course, great worries, and Judge Tumim highlighted a number of them in his report. He also said that good work was being done. I am concerned that there should be positive and purposeful activity in all institutions for young offenders. That is the aim of the prison service and that is what the governors of those institutions are dedicated to providing.

Prison Building

Mr. Devlin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the prison building programme.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Sixteen of the 21 new prisons in the Government's building programme have now opened, providing 8,000 additional places. Within the next 12 months, four of the remaining five are due to open, providing 2,250 places. In addition, this year we shall be spending nearly £200 million on improving the existing prison estate.

Mr. Devlin: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on that wonderful answer—[Interruption.] It is in sharp contrast to the 20 per cent. cut in prison building under the last Labour Government. We look forward in Stockton-on-Tees to the imminent opening of Holme House Farm prison. I suggest that the police in Stockton-on-Tees, who have faced a spate of riots among drug gangs on the Ragworth estate, should be given every encouragement to apprehend all those behaving so disagracefully and to ensure that they are thrown into the new prison as soon as possible.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend may certainly congratulate me on my answers in those terms as many times as he wishes. It is true that there has been a spectacular prison building programme during the 1980s, after decades in which the prison service's needs were sadly neglected, which is why we still have so many old and unsatisfactory buildings. The new prison in Stockton opened this year and is a valuable addition to the service. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the police on their handling of the disorders in Stockton. The disorders began when the police made arrests in an attempt to tackle a drug problem on that estate. I am sure that the police have the support of the vast majority of the inhabitants of the estate in dealing with the trouble caused by those young hooligans coming to the town.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Home Secretary discontinue the practice—some people would say the sharp practice—pursued by his predecessor of holding up the publication of Judge Tumim's reports for so long that their criticisms are somewhat blunted? Why has he not accepted the report in respect of the young offenders institution at Feltham, which is a damning indictment?

Mr. Clarke: I refute the suggestion that Ministers have ever deliberately held back Judge Tumim's reports. My predecessor did not do so; nor have we. Delays have not been the result of ministerial decisions. I welcome Judge Tumim's reports, despite the fact that he is often outspoken in the public interest about the conditions that he finds in prisons. He describes the difficult situation in Feltham, which is being tackled by the prison authorities. Judge Tumim's reports are helpful to us in identifying problems and stimulating the efforts of the governor and his staff to deal with them.

Safer Cities

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many areas are now covered by the safer cities programme; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): In the current safer cities programme, there are 20 local authority areas selected, on the basis of high crime rates and other factors, from among the 57 urban programme areas in England. We are considering how to implement and expand the programme in the light of achievements to date.

Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that scheme has already notched up some significant successes, with a 40 per cent. cut in burglaries on a Wolverhampton housing estate, a 35 per cent. drop in car crime in a Nottingham car park and a 16 per cent. drop in crime in the centre of Birmingham? Does he agree that that shows that the Government have the policies to combat crime?

Mr. Jack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his correct statement on some of the notable achievements in those areas in our safer cities programme. I am sure that he will be pleased to learn that Nottingham has been a beneficiary of those achievements. The whole approach that he illuminated for the House falls within the philosophy of the safer cities programme—that of reducing the fear of crime among vulnerable groups such as the elderly, ethnic minorities and particularly women. We shall certainly develop those imaginative initiatives.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that there may be people who are not yet aware of the programme? At a recent meeting in south Belfast I discovered that work had been going on but people were unaware of it. Is there not a need for greater publicity and co-ordination of efforts?

Mr. Jack: I am always delighted when hon. Members ask for information, and I can immediately produce a copy of a report dealing with the hon. Gentleman's point. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives a copy of it and that copies are made available for any of his constituents who are interested in the subject.

Car Crime

Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the contribution made by the insurance industry to car crime prevention.

Mr. Jack: The industry has responded to the problem of car crime in a number of ways, including setting up the motor insurance anti-fraud and theft register. On premium levels, some reductions have been offered where anti-theft equipment has been fitted, but that has generally been limited to new cars. I hope that the industry will do more.

Mrs. Peacock: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I appreciate that many car crimes involve vehicles that are left open, but many more involve locked vehicles. What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure that motor manufacturers make all vehicles much more secure and to encourage insurance companies to give even bigger discounts to all motorists?

Mr. Jack: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that many car manufacturers have woken up to the fact that the installation of security equipment as standard on many models is a major sales feature. As we approach the peak August registration period, my hon. Friend can look


forward to many advertisements recognising that fact. I am shortly to have meetings with representatives of the Association of British Insurers and shall press them to do more in respect of not only new cars but to the many millions of second-hand cars on which people can fit immobilisers and alarms. I should like the insurance companies to show greater recognition of those suggestions.

Prisoners

Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest estimate of the prison population.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The prison population on Wednesday 17 June 1992 was 46,955.

Mr. Grocott: Can the Home Secretary confirm that the Council of Europe figures clearly show that the prison population in this country is the highest in western Europe and that as many as two thirds of offenders are reconvicted within two years of being sent to prison? Does he think that we have that dreadful record because the British people are uniquely delinquent or does he think, as I do, that the Government are uniquely incompetent when dealing with crime prevention, particularly reoffending?

Mr. Clarke: I am aware of the Council of Europe figures, although I always treat international comparisons with care. It is not the case that the levels of crime—for example, violent crime—in this country are particularly high when compared with other European standards, but they are quite high enough. The public require the Government to provide the courts with a full range of penalties and require people to be committed to prison where the severity of an offence justifies it. We are about to bring into effect the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to give the courts a wider range of effective penalties. The courts may decide to use non-custodial sentences in appropriate cases, where previously they may have given prison sentences.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, desirable as it no doubt is to reduce the prison population, it is absurd to expect judges to reduce the prison population by obliging them, under the Criminal Justice Act, to take no account of a man's previous convictions?

Mr. Clarke: The Criminal Justice Act tries to bring greater rationality into sentencing by setting out more clearly the matters that courts should and should not take into consideration. I have no doubt that the courts will continue to use the penalties at their disposal to the fullest effect that they think necessary to protect the public. I am sure that the Criminal Justice Act will not inhibit judges' ability to do so.

Mr. Sheerman: Is it not amazingly complacent for the Home Secretary not even to mention in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) that, at the end of March, 11 prisons were overcrowded by 50 per cent? There are now almost 2,000 prisoners held in police cells. Is it not the Home Secretary's job to resolve the problem quickly? Will he start talking to judge Stephen Tumim and listening to his recommendations, rather than pursuing the silly policy of privatising prisons?

Mr. Clarke: I have already welcomed judge Tumim's report. An independent inspector of this kind is an added incentive to raising standards. There is still overcrowding in our prisons, but it has dropped dramatically in the past two or three years. We have somewhat reduced the capacity of our prisons by introducing a programme to get rid of slopping-out by the end of 1994. I believe that the whole House supports that. Five prisons are under construction or have been commissioned; they will add 3,000 extra places. We are producing more capacity for the prisoners and improving the regime in the prisons. We have quite a long way to go, but there has been a spectacular improvement in the past two or three years.

Vehicle Thefts

Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department is including motor cycle thefts and business vehicle thefts in its plans to prevent crime.

Mr. Jack: I can confirm that both motor cycles and business vehicles are included in our overall strategy to prevent vehicle crime.

Mr. Streeter: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply. Is he aware that the increase in the theft of motor cycles in my constituency is a problem taking up a great deal of police time and resources? Does he agree that the main responsibility for the prevention of the theft of motor cycles lies with motor cyclists themselves, by ensuring that they have taken adequate security measures?

Mr. Jack: I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend's problem in his constituency. I hope that he will be pleased to know that we in the Home Office play our part in assisting the process that he has described. In the next edition of "Practical Ways to Crack Crime" we will incorporate a section of advice on motor cycle theft. A motor cycle theft action group has been established throughout the industry to deal with the problem and I attended, under the auspices of the Institute of Motor Cycling, the launch of a new security device. Technology and practical advice are being brought to bear on this important problem.

Prison Conditions

Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he met the chief inspector of prisons to discuss his latest report on prison conditions.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary met the chief inspector for a general discussion on 30 April. I met Judge Tumim on 28 April and again on 7 May, when I attended the inspectorate's training seminar in Eastbourne.

Mr. Cox: I thank the Minister for that reply. He and his right hon. and learned Friend will be in no doubt about the continuing criticism by the chief inspector of our prisons, the conditions in which many inmates are kept and the sad increase in suicides in prison. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is obvious from talking to senior prison governors and prison officers that the root problem in our prisons, as today's exchanges have shown, is gross overcrowding? It is


not building new prisons that will release the tensions and solve the troubles in our prisons. When will this issue be faced up to?

Mr. Lloyd: Having spoken to the chief inspector, I am well aware that he believes that there are many excellent prisons, with good work being done in them. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, the number of suicides has fallen in recent years. Any suicide is one too many, but there are fewer suicides now.
My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the building and refurbishment programmes, which are extensive. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will resist those members of the public who object to the building of new prisons in suitable places—as they are naturally inclined to do.

Burglaries

Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the proportion of domestic burglaries which do not involve forced entry.

Mr. Jack: The last British crime survey carried out in 1988 showed that 18 per cent. of all burglary victims interviewed said that their homes had not been left secure when they went out. However, the latest data from the Metropolitan police district showed that 29 per cent. of domestic burglaries involved no forced entry.

Mrs. Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of my constituents consider that at least part of the responsibility for rising crime in Derbyshire should be taken by the county council for not funding the police properly? As such a considerable proportion of break-ins are not forced, will my hon. Friend suggest that the public help themselves by locking up properly and by joining neighbourhood watch schemes such as those that operate in Erewash?

Mr. Jack: I hope that at the county council elections the people of Derbyshire will lock the door and throw away the key on Derbyshire county council. We have heard of their misdoings for too long. But in fairness, some members of the Derbyshire police force are making their contribution to solving the problems that my hon. Friend enumerates. I pay tribute to Inspector Rosey Kiddy for her work on neighbourhood watch schemes. I commend to the House an excellent crime prevention newspaper which advertises some of the excellent work that is being done by neighbourhood watch schemes to enable individuals to protect their properties as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Barnes: Will the Minister have a word with the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that Derbyshire county council has a decent standard spending assessment so that the services needed can be provided? The Government, not the county council, are responsible for any problems that exist in Derbyshire, which has been acting within the Government's framework.

Mr. Jack: If the hon. Gentleman will convey messages back to Derby about the effective use of resources, particularly spending up to the amount that is available to be spent on the police service, I am sure that his remarks will be listened to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Sunday Trading

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received recently about the operation of the Shops Act 1950.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: So far this year we have received 149 written representations broadly in favour of more Sunday trading and 819 against.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for promising to produce the Government's considered thoughts on the matter by the end of the year. Is he aware that Sunday trading is popular with the majority of shoppers, shopworkers and shopkeepers? Is it not high time that the British people were free to decide whether to shop or not to shop, to work or not to work on a Sunday?

Mr. Clarke: First, I have not promised to produce anything by the end of the year, so my hon. Friend will have to wait to see whether his thanks are premature. We are committed to bringing proposals to the House once the law has been made clear by the European Court of Justice for whose judgment we are still waiting. Then we shall obviously have to consider what to do to produce a solution that the House finds acceptable for the future. Meanwhile, I agree with my hon. Friend. Sunday shopping seems extremely popular with my constituents and is certainly not giving rise to any protests from anybody in my part of the world.

Mr. Ray Powell: The Secretary of State may not have promised to prepare anything before the end of the year, but I have prepared, with the Keep Sunday Special campaign, a Bill to change the law on Sunday trading. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look at the Bill and give it the Government's support? It contains measures that were accepted on both sides of the House. On 22 January when I produced a similar Bill, 224 hon. Members voted in favour of it—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than to test my patience in that way. He should put his question.

Mr. Ray Powell: I do not wish to test your patience, Madam Speaker, but—

Madam Speaker: Order. I was not giving the hon. Gentleman pause for a second breath.

Mr. Clarke: We are awaiting the judgment of the European Court of Justice on the Shops Act 1950 to see whether that can still be enforced. It certainly seems to be the case that no one wants the Shops Act 1950 still to be in force and people are proposing variations upon it in all directions. By the time we reach the hon. Gentleman's Bill, the position will be clearer and no doubt we shall debate the matter then. But I shall be surprised if there is any proposition which has only four opponents in the House.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is a great deal of sympathy for the Bill being introduced by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell)? Will he ensure that there is a proper free vote on that Bill when it comes before the House?

Mr. Clarke: As I have said, we have not yet committed ourselves to introducing any measure of our own. We have


therefore not yet taken a decision on the handling of the hon. Gentleman's Bill. However, I appreciate that views on the issue run across party lines and that strong views are held on both sides of the House. A feature of the proposed reform is that it seeks to distinguish between one type of goods and another, one type of shop and another and one type of hour of day and another. All those solutions are difficult to envisage in practice, but we shall consider them all once we have the judgment of the European Court of Justice and are clear about the present legal position.

Mr. Randall: Is the Home Secretary aware that Government incompetence has resulted in Dewhurst's having to announce the closure of 600 of its high street shops—one third of its network—because of illegal competition from certain super-stores? That has meant a serious loss of consumer choice and of jobs. As we can now expect an early decision from the European Court about the state of the Shops Act 1950, will the Home Secretary tell the House whether he is committed to introducing legislation as a matter of urgency after the decision has been announced, or whether he is going to connive with the law breakers like his predecessors?

Mr. Clarke: The Government presented a Bill that would have enabled us to reform Sunday trading. I spoke in favour of that Bill on Second Reading and voted for it, but the last Parliament threw it out on Second Reading and left the House unable to do anything about the existing state of the law. The House must address the issue and reach some clear conclusion. No one is breaking the law, because the House of Lords has decided that it is not clear what the law is. That is why the matter has been referred to the European Court of Justice; when we have a decision from the court, we shall know the basis on which we are starting.
I do not accept that any company has been closed down by the impact of Sunday trading. If the Labour party's only contribution is to undertake to protect Dewhurst from competition, I do not think that that is a very good starting point. What we need is an accepted law on Sunday trading, within which all retailers can compete on level terms.

Mr. Higgins: Should not the principle of subsidiarity apply in this case?

Mr. Clarke: Our national Parliament has not made a tremendous success of getting the law right in this regard. Of all the legislation passed by the House, the Shops Act 1950 lends itself to least defence, and we all now want to change it.
Our European commitment extends simply to ensuring that national laws do not place any impediments in the way of free trade within the Community. This country is strongly in favour of that. We shall wait to see whether the European Court decides that it extends to the Shops Act; there is a real possibility that it will say that this is a matter for the House of Commons to decide. If it says that, we shall face up to all the arguments that have just been presented.

Walton Gaol

Mr. Kilfoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently held in Walton gaol.

Mr. Peter Lloyd: Yesterday, 1,205 prisoners were being held in Her Majesty's prison, Liverpool.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Given that the prison is the largest of its kind in the country, and given the close proximity of other penal institutions across north Merseyside, how can the Minister justify proposals to build another prison a mile away at Fazakerley in my constituency, and to introduce prison ships on the River Mersey? Does he not understand that the recommendations of the Woolf report on prisons in the community did not mean that all the prisons should be built in my area?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He has referred to other establishments. Certainly, there is an assessment centre for disturbed juveniles in the area, but that belongs to the local authority. There is a secure psychiatric hospital at Ashworth; that belongs to the national health service. Neither of those establishments belong to the prison service.
The prison at Walton is overcrowded. We do not believe in keeping prisoners in overcrowded conditions. There is no proper place for young offenders on remand, and there is a need on Merseyside. A study by the Office of Population Census and Surveys of the prison system suggested that some 1,900 prisoners had Merseyside origins; even when the prison is built at Fazakerley, there will be only 1,600 places for them in Liverpool.

Mr. Gill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the amount of interest shown in prison overcrowding during today's Question Time does not reflect the concern of our constituents? They are more concerned about the incidence of crime and its victims.

Mr. Lloyd: The supplementary question to which I am replying is not on all fours with the sentiments expressed earlier about overcrowding by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). We have put in a planning application and we shall see what the council says. I shall take close notice of its views.

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Given that Liverpool is already the home of Walton prison, Ashworth and Dyson hall, will the Minister accept that many of my constituents are outraged at the proposal to build a further prison at Fazakerley? Does he have plans to privatise that prison?

Mr. Lloyd: We have no current plans to privatise that prison. As I explained earlier to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), the assessment centre belongs to the county council. It is not for prison service occupation but for disturbed juveniles who are not inside the prison system. The same applies to the psychiatric hospital. There is a need for extra prison places on Merseyside and our proposal would provide them.

Special Constabulary

Mr. Hawksley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for expanding the special constabulary.

Mr. Charles Wardle: A campaign was launched last year to increase the numbers of special constables in the forces of England and Wales. Our intention is to recruit an extra 10,000 special constables and bring totals up to 25,000.

Mr. Hawksley: I thank my hon. Friend for those encouraging figures. However, it is disappointing that he does not offer any specific proposals for increased methods of recruitment. Will he consider setting up a special constabulary on the same basis as the Territorial Army?

Mr. Wardle: A three-year promotional campaign is under-way and it has started with promise. At present there are some 18,000 special constables and, in the first year of the campaign, an extra 14 per cent. growth has been seen. So the incentive is there. Comparison with the Territorial Army suggests a bounty scheme. That has been considered by the forces that have special constables and the Dorset constabulary is planning a pilot scheme.
Since my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) mentioned special constables, I hope, Madam Speaker, that you will allow me to mention the murder 11 days ago of special constable Goodman. Mr. Goodman was one of those special constables who, like their colleagues in the regular force, put their lives at risk in the line of duty. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Minister have sent their condolences to Mrs. Goodman and I know that the House will wish to join me in expressing similar sentiments to the bereaved family.

Immigration Officers

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the system of training immigration officers on the conduct of their duties.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Immigration officer training is designed to ensure high standards of courtesy and professionalism, and emphasises race and equal opportunities awareness and the development of inter-personal skills.

Mrs. Campbell: Will the Minister look into the case of Mr. Adol Owen-Williams of Maryland in the United States who came to this country at the time of the Los Angeles riots? He was accused, without evidence and solely because he is black, of trying to escape criminal prosecution in the United States. As a result of his questioning, he was imprisoned for two days in a cell that reeked of urine and was kept without adequate food. I should like the Minister to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of that injustice and ensure that Mr. Owen-Williams receives adequate compensation for the injustice he received.

Mr. Wardle: I must refute what the hon. Lady has said. The Owen-Williams case has been thoroughly investigated and a reply has been sent to Mr. Owen-Williams as a result of that investigation. I have seen that report. The refusal of leave to enter conformed to immigration rules and hinged largely on false information being given about his current employment status and the fact that he shipped a car and large amounts of luggage into the country. He was detained at a police station because there was evidence of previous criminal convictions in the United States. If there is anything to regret about this unhappy episode, it is that some critics who should know better have impugned the professional integrity of hard-working men and women in the immigration service without even bothering to check the facts of the case.

Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that the country is right to be proud of its immigration service and that there is no more important cornerstone of good race relations in this country than having a firm and fairly implemented immigration policy that prevents the fears of the indigenous majority from being reflected in the sort of ugly episodes that we have seen abroad?

Mr. Wardle: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He may wish to know that such matters are emphasised in immigration officers' induction training and consolidation training courses, which continue after they have been in post for between one and a half and three years. Vocational courses are also available to them.

Crime

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he is considering to prevent the rising incidence of crime; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Jack: We shall continue to take vigorous action to tackle crime by improving the effectiveness of the criminal justice system and developing our crime prevention strategy through the involvement of the whole community in this task.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister prepared to reconsider the sentencing guidance that is given to judges? Is he aware that, under the Criminal Justice Act 1991, judges are being advised and invited to consider only two previous convictions when sentencing a convicted person? Would not it be a more effective deterrent against rising burglary and house-breaking if judges were given more flexibility in the disposal of those cases?

Mr. Jack: I listened carefully to what the hon. Member said. He will be aware that one of the new guiding principles in the Criminal Justice Act is the introduction of consultative councils, of which, I am pleased to say, the judiciary will now be part. I am sure that some of the matters that he mentioned in his question will be discussed by those bodies.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Official Visits

Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Prime Minister when he next expects to pay an official visit to Bury.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I shall be making further visits to many parts of the country and hope to include my hon. Friend's constituency among them.

Mr. Sumberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at tonight's annual general meeting of the Bury, South Conservative association we shall celebrate our recent victories in the local and general elections and welcome my right hon. Friend's recent speech on the citizens charter to the Adam Smith Institute, in which he made it absolutely clear that in the battle between the Goliaths, who want greater state intervention, and the Davids, who want greater individual freedom, he backs the Davids every time?

The Prime Minister: I wish that I could be with my hon. Friend this evening for his celebrations. The people of Bury, South made a wise choice, and they certainly did in the general election. My hon. Friend is right: I want to see a change in attitude in many areas of public services. We need public services that meet what the public want, not what the so-called experts tell them they should have.

Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to Woolwich.

The Prime Minister: I will be making further visits to many parts of the country and hope to include different parts of London among them.

Mr. Austin-Walker: Does the Prime Minister share the enthusiasm of the President of the Board of Trade for the economic regeneration of the east Thames corridor? Does he share the views of previous Secretaries of State for Transport that the Jubilee line is essential for that economic regeneration and that it can be achieved at far less cost to the Exchequer than building the east London river crossing and without the environmental damage that would ensue from the road?

The Prime Minister: I hope that in due course we shall be able to proceed with the Jubilee line, but we shall wish to see the private sector contribution that we previously set as the sum necessary to ensure that we can proceed. Providing we can achieve that, I hope that we will be able to proceed with the Jubilee line. Economic regeneration is welcome everywhere.

Engagements

Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 June.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Sir Anthony Durant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reduction in nuclear weapons that was agreed between President Bush and the Russian President is good news and is to be welcomed? However, will he assure the House and the nation that he will maintain strong United Kingdom defences within NATO and will continue with the Trident programme?

The Prime Minister: I warmly welcome the announcements that were made after the meetings in Washington between President Bush and President Yeltsin. We shall certainly continue to maintain our own independent nuclear deterrent. We shall maintain it, build it, arm it and deploy Trident.

Mr. Kinnock: On this day on which unemployment has gone above 2.7 million again, does the Prime Minister recall that it is exactly a year since he said that economic recovery would begin—and I use his words—"within weeks" and that Britain would come out of recession by the end of 1991? Why was he so absurdly wrong?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will have been very pleased to see the economic indicators this week in the light of that remark—very pleased indeed. He will have been pleased to see that manufacturing production has risen for three months in a row for the first

time in two years, that retail sales are up again, that the rate of increase in average earnings has slowed further to 7 per cent. and is now at its lowest level for 25 years. While the increase in unemployment is very unwelcome, it is clearly now slowing, so I think that the right hon. Gentleman can now see that we are on the road to recovery.

Mr. Kinnock: I am always glad to see any movement out of the trough into which this Government's policies have pushed the British people and the British economy, but, after the Chancellor's statement yesterday that Britain is three years away from full recovery, as he put it, is not it clear that whenever the Prime Minister or the Chancellor have made optimistic comments about the economy, they have simply not been telling the truth to the British people?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should not be misled by everything that he reads in newspaper headlines; he should read the speech itself. He should recall that in January he relied a touch too heavily on a press report and criticised me when he was confusing taxes and interest rates. The reality was that what my right hon. Friend actually said yesterday was:
In two or three years' time…people will look back and see that it was now, at this critical juncture, that the right decision was taken.
He did not say that it would be two or three years before recovery.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister giving us a date for recovery? He used to be very anxious so to do. I remind him that this time last year he said that it would start "within weeks". This time last year he said that there would be recovery by the end of the year. Why is he much more coy now, a year later, in giving us a firm forecast on when Britain can rejoin the countries that enjoy some growth, since we have now had two years with negative growth under his Government?

The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman should now know that we are on our way to recovery, and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to know perhaps why the recovery was later than it might have been, I quote the words of the general secretary of the Labour party who claimed that the Labour party did not win the election because of the
fear of high tax, plus general unease about [Labour's] economic competence.
That did no good at all while the right hon. Gentleman was boasting that he would be sitting on this side of the Chamber.

Mr. Renton: While I hope that the Irish people will reach a positive conclusion in their referendum today, does my right hon. Friend agree that the holding of referendums on major constitutional issues runs contrary to the practice of parliamentary sovereignty in this country and that further, it would be impossible to boil down the many complex issues of the 134-page treaty of Maastricht into one short, but fair and comprehensive question? Further, has the Prime Minister noted—

Madam Speaker: Order. One question.

Mr. Renton: —the recent twists and turns on the European issue by the Labour leader?

Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is being very unfair in putting so many questions in a short space of time. I call the Prime Minister to answer the first two.

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend's comments on the subject of referendums. I believe that he states the classical position concerning parliamentary democracy.

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Fyfe: As the Prime Minister says no to a devolved Scottish Parliament. against the wishes of the majority of the Scottish people. and also says no to a referendum on how Scotland should be governed, will he tell us to what, after 10 weeks of taking stock, he is prepared to say yes?

The Prime Minister: I shall tell the hon. Lady when we have concluded taking stock.

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Evennett: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent speech to the Adam Smith Institute, in which he advocated more choice and opportunity for the less privileged in our society. Does he agree that we have a lot to do for our inner cities—and in particular that we must ensure that standards in inner-city schools are raised?

The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about that. We are determined to raise standards in all our schools, and especially to deal with the problem that clearly exists in many of our inner-cities. I believe that school governors and education authorities must act quickly where inspectors' reports show that standards are unacceptably low. That is too often the case in many of our inner-city schools, and the Government do not intend to stand idly by and see it continue.

Mr. Ashdown: What will the Prime Minister do about unemployment, which is now rising inexorably towards 3 million? It is now two months since the election, and only a handful of weeks until school leavers come on to the register. Are the Government so consumed by self-satisfaction and so sunk in lethargy that they offer no hope, no policies and no action for those who are losing their jobs?

The Prime Minister: I am in no sense satisfied with the level of unemployment in this country, and I have made that clear before. We need the right sort of economic policy, which will sustain long-term employment prospects; that is what we are putting into place and we shall ensure that we achieve it.
When the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) asks for action he means short-term subsidy—that is what he is really asking for. His only answer is to subsidise the inefficient, the uneconomic and the out of date. No wonder the Liberal Democrats have so much in common with the official Opposition.

Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir Michael Neubert: Is the Prime Minister aware that a distinguished predecesor and former Minister for administrative affairs—Mr. Jim Hacker—reaches pensionable age today? In the spirit of that great statesman, I, too, welcome the Prime Minister's speech to the Adam Smith Institute this week. I also ask my right hon. Friend to urge his colleagues at tomorrow's citizens charter seminar at No. 10 to press forward with further improvements to our public services. In particular, will he tell us whether we can expect the publication of a courts charter, to deal with the interminable delays to which so much of our law is subject?

The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend touches an important matter, which causes frustration for many of our fellow citizens. We are proceeding to produce a courts charter and I hope that we shall be able to make announcements about it before too long.

Libya (Sanctions)

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on representations from Arab countries about sanctions against Libya.

The Prime Minister: We have had various approaches from Arab countries about sanctions against Libya. We and the Arab League share the same objective—to see a satisfactory outcome to the Lockerbie problem. This, as the Arab League well knows, will require Libya's full compliance with United Nations Security Council resolution 731.

Mr. Dalyell: In the light of my two letters to the Prime Minister on this subject, will he consider putting in the Library a response to the cover story of Time magazine— not exactly a publication of the left—which challenges the whole basis of the Anglo-American position? Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider approaching Spain on the legal proceedings relating to Monzer al Kassar, a Syrian drugs and arms dealer?

The Prime Minister: I saw the article in Time magazine; I examined it and sought advice on it. The theories about involvement and links with drugs are not new. They were thoroughly examined by the police during the investigation and were discounted at that stage, at the conclusion of the investigation. No evidence has yet been found to link the Syrian, al Kassar, to Lockerbie—but I shall, of course, examine the matter again in view of the hon. Gentleman's representations.

Mr. Wilkinson: Can my right hon. Friend enlighten the House about any dealings between Government officials and the Government of Libya over links between the Libyan regime and the Irish Republican Army? Has the IRA received any supplies from Libya recently? Have the Libyan authorities given assurances to the Government that they will not continue to supply the IRA?

The Prime Minister: The Libyans have provided some information to the Government about their relationships with the IRA; they did so in Geneva on 9 June. The


preliminary assessment of that information suggests that although in places it was incomplete and unsatisfactory, it contains some positive elements which may well prove useful. One positive development is the fact that the

Libyans have indicated to us that they wish to cease providing assistance to the IRA. We are not convinced that that is yet the case.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 22 JUNE—Progress in Committee on the Boundary Commissions Bill.
TUESDAY 23 JUNE—Until about seven o'clock, completion in Committee of the Boundary Commissions Bill.
Proceedings on the Protection of Badgers Bill [Lords], Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Bill [Lords], and the Tribunals and Inquiries Bill [Lords], all of which are consolidation measures.
Motions on the Criminal Law orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Debate on reports from the Select Committee on Members' Interests (House of Commons Papers Nos. 108 and 326) on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 24 JUNE—Until about seven o'clock, motions on the special grant reports for England and Wales. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Charge Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order.
THURSDAY 25 JUNE—Debate on the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 26 JUNE—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 29 JUNE—Remaining stages of British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 24 June to consider European Community Document No. 7857/91 relating to vehicle noise.
There is one further piece of intelligence, possibly rather more welcome, which I can communicate to the House. The House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, it is proposed that the House should rise for the summer Adjournment on Thursday 16 July until Monday 19 October. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House should not get too excited about that last item of information.

[Tuesday 23 June:
Criminal Law Orders

(a) Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order
(b) Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Amendment) Order

Wednesday 24 June:
Special Grant Reports

(a) Special Grant Report (No. 4) 1992–93
(b) Special Grant Report (Wales) 1992

European Standing Committee A

Relevant European Community Document

7857/91 Vehicle Noise

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee HC 29-xxx (1990–91) and HC 24-v (1991–92).]

Dr. Cunningham: The welcome for the right hon. Gentleman's announcement of the summer recess is evident. Would it not have been better if that announcement had been made in the context of a debate in the House on the proposals in the Jopling report? May I again urge the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on that important report before we reach the summer Adjournment?
May I welcome the Government's announcement and the decision by the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on the important Rio summit? However, I express regret that the debate will take place on a motion for the Adjournment of the House and not on a substantive motion setting out the Government's detailed ideas and proposals on how they will implement the general agreement reached at the Earth summit in Rio.
I strongly urge the Leader of the House to find Government time for a debate on the appalling level of unemployment. Is it not a daunting—indeed, dismaying —prospect for young people leaving schools, universities and colleges this summer who face such difficulties in finding employment? May we have a debate? May we have a statement at that time about what new ideas, policies or initiatives, if any, the Government intend to take as a matter of urgency to tackle the inexorable and appalling rise in unemployment?

Mr. Newton: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments about the recess dates. Obviously, I note what he said about the wider proposals of the Jopling report. Although a debate is not scheduled for next week, it is our firm intention to provide time for a debate on the report before the House rises on 16 July.
On the Rio summit, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear on many occasions that the wide-ranging discussions at Rio were part of a continuing process rather than something that is implemented at one time. The nature of the summit, the problem and the on-going action and consideration that will be required in Britain and elsewhere makes it more appropriate to have a wide-ranging debate on the Adjournment than to attempt to devise a motion along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggested.
On the unemployment figures, there will obviously be several occasions, not least the various Adjournment debates and other occasions during the next few weeks, on which it will be possible to debate the unemployment figures. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not overplay his hand. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in response to questions this afternoon, the figures this month seem to confirm a slowing down of an albeit unwelcome rise in unemployment. As for initiatives, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt have registered the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has announced today a significantly higher new target for the Employment Service for placing people in new jobs in the coming year.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is growing anxiety about the delay in establishing the departmental Select Committees? As there is even less time before the recess than we expected, it is important that they should be set up so that they can appoint advisers and determine their programmes, and so that the Clerks can begin their work. Although there may be particular points which give cause for further


negotiation on certain Committees, there is no reason why most of the Committees should not be set up in the next two weeks.

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend is aware of the endeavours that I am making in this respect. The discussions are taking place through the usual channels. One of the debates that I have announced this week, on which I have been pressed from both below and above the Gangway—the debate on Members' interests in relation to Select Committees—is a further step in paving the way to setting up the Select Committees.

Mr. A. J. Beith: May we have a Government statement as soon as possible on the announcement this afternoon that Yorkshire Television is to take over Tyne Tees Television by agreement with Tyne Tees Television? Does the Leader of the House recall that, in debates on the Broadcasting Bill, the Minister was pressed from this Bench many times on possible takeovers of smaller regional companies? Should not the House now be told why the responses and assurances given at that time have been shown to be of no value?

Mr. Newton: Of course, I shall make sure that the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who is responsible for these matters, is drawn at once to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. However, he is aware that the Broadcasting Act 1987 makes provision for mergers and takeovers with the approval of the Independent Television Commission. I understand that the commission will continue to enforce the original licence conditions.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As a gesture to show our appreciation to the voters of Denmark for bringing about a longer summer break, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate next week on how the British Government can let the voters of Britain know what is in the Maastricht treaty?

Mr. Newton: I cannot undertake to publish a substantial additional document between now and next week. As I believe was fairly commonplace in what might be called gossip around the place at earlier times, it has persistently been the Government's wish and hope to get the House up in the middle of July, in line with one of the Jopling report's recommendations.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Will the Leader of the House send the sincerest apologies of the House to the Government and people of Sweden for the crass behaviour there this week, of vandals who represent only 3 per cent. of football supporters in this country? Will he approach the president of the Union of European Football Associations, perhaps through the diplomatic channels, and ask it not to ban clubs such as Sheffield Wednesday—my club—Manchester United and Leeds United from playing in Europe next season, because there supporters and players have committed no crime and it would be unfair to punish them in that way?

Mr. Newton: I shall ensure that the attention of UEFA is drawn to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. On his first question, I am in the happy position of being able simply to say yes.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Members have received correspondence from the Minister for Housing and Planning about the planning inspectorate agency, informing us that the answers to questions normally published in Hansard will instead be put in the Library. Will the Leader of the House consider publishing daily, as an appendix to Hansard, questions asked by Members so that there is some record of what they are asking the planning inspectorate?

Mr. Newton: That issue arose on several occasions during the last Parliament as the executive agencies were being set up. I think that my hon. Friend understands the position. The Government wish to improve access to the letters answering such questions in some circumstances, and have put proposals for their publication to the House authorities. Now that the House Committees have been reconstituted, I hope that it will be possible for an early decision to be taken.

Mr. Tony Banks: Now we know that we are to have an even earlier summer recess, will the Leader of the House tell us when we can debate the vexed matter of research and secretarial allowances? It is a crucial issue and we need to debate it because too many people outside the House seem to believe that research and secretarial allowances are an addition to Members' pay. I had to pay back an additional £5,000 to the Fees Office last year because of excess demands upon my office. We need a debate before the summer recess.

Mr. Newton: I agree that we need such a debate before the summer recess and it is my intention that there should be one, but I cannot give an exact date.

Mr. James Hill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are still a seafaring nation? I have been asking for some time for a debate on shipping and ports policy, possibly attached to a debate on transport infrastructure. The problem is being studied by three or four different Departments and it would be useful to have a debate in the ouse to bring it all together.

Mr. Newton: I appreciate my hon. Friend's long interest in such matters in the House, and I note his request. I would not wish to excite hopes of being able to accommodate his wish before the summer recess, but I shall certainly bear it in mind.

Ms. Estelle Morris: Will the Minister find time next week for at least a statement on the rights of parents of children with special needs to choose the school that their child attends? Will he include in his statement a response to the representations that I have made on behalf of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. McNerlin, about their nine-year-old autistic son Daniel, who has not been to school for 16 months as a result of a difference of opinion between his parents and the local authority?

Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Lady's reference to the case, which will no doubt be examined by those responsible. On the general issue, she will be aware, I am sure, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is working on some education proposals. I shall ensure that his attention is drawn to the matter about which the hon. Lady has expressed concern.

Mr. John Greenway: During Home Office questions today my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department paid tribute to Special Constable Glenn Goodman of the North Yorkshire police. May we have a debate soon on the police service? In recent weeks the Home Secretary has made important speeches about policing policy to the Association of Chief Police Officers conference and before that to the Police Federation. Does not my right hon. Friend share my concern that the arrangements about payment of a pension to Constable Goodman's widow are in some doubt? Is that not a matter that the House should consider?

Mr. Newton: I echo the earlier remarks made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. My hon. Friend will appreciate that, while I acknowledge his legitimate concern about the matter, I cannot promise a debate. However, I shall bear his request in mind.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House find time for an urgent debate on the housing crisis? Is he aware that, this week, my local authority found that it had no bed-and-breakfast or hostel accommodation for the elderly and had to appeal to the citizens of Halifax to take in the homeless? Is he further aware that the Federation of Housing Associations published a report this week stating that it could no longer build affordable homes, which is all due to the Government's housing policies? Is it not time that we spared just one day for a debate on the homeless to show that we really care?

Mr. Newton: Perhaps I should observe that the Opposition had a Supply day this week and it would have been open to them to raise that subject if they had wished to do so. However, as I said in reply to the request from the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for a debate on unemployment, it will be possible to raise various matters in what remains of the Session before the summer recess. The Government are concerned to make some improvements to housing policy, and that was manifest by out commitment in the Queen's Speech to introduce the Housing Land and Urban Development Bill. That will certainly provide the hon. Lady with many opportunities to discuss housing later in the year.

Mr. John Butcher: In the aftermath of the events in Sweden, in which the sub-humans who call themselves football supporters dragged England's name through the mud, may we have a debate on civil liberties? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we do not interfere with the civil liberties of that mindless minority, it will damage the civil liberties of us all?

Mr. Newton: I need not go so far as to promise a debate in the terms sought by my hon. Friend. However, he will probably be aware that we have reached an agreement with the Swedish Government whereby English supporters who are convicted of football-related offences in Sweden may be made the subject of restriction orders. That would prevent them from causing further trouble at overseas matches, which is something that the whole House wants to ensure.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: May I press the right hon. Gentleman on his reply to the hon. Member

for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) on the safety of vessels? He will be aware of the Select Committee report from another place that dealt with that matter. Will the House be able to consider that report in order to give us some idea of the Government's position in relation to it?

Mr. Newton: I have enough difficulty from time to time in accommodating the desire to debate the Select Committee reports of this House without entering into a commitment to debate Select Committee reports from another place. The hon. Gentleman can press me further and, clearly, he intends to do so. However, I cannot promise any more than I did to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill).

Mr. James Paice: Will it be possible to have a debate soon on the problems caused by travellers? Many Conservative Members have commented in meetings at which I have been present about the widespread problems that are caused by travellers. The problems are caused not by the traditional romany but by Johnny-come-latelies, who park anywhere, take no notice of people's property and have no respect for the law or anything else. We need a debate, and some action to tighten up the legislation.

Mr. Newton: That subject has been raised on several occasions during business questions in the past few weeks. Although I cannot add to what I have said before, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that our hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) is to initiate an Adjournment debate on Monday 29 June under the heading "Camping by travellers".

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, instead of packing up and going on holiday on 16 July, we should debate next week, and extend the other business into the holiday period, the question of opencast mining? Several early-day motions appear on the Order Paper relating to opencasting in many constituencies. Is he further aware that opencast production has more than doubled in recent years? Does he appreciate the need to withdraw a circular that was issued in 1984 which enables opencast mining to occur not on the basis of planning conditions but in relation to whether the coal is needed? As we do not need coal through opencasting—because we have plenty of deep-mined coal—let us debate the whole subject, including that planning arrangement, so that the circular can be withdrawn and we can reduce the amount of opencast mining that is blighting countless constituencies in Britain.

Mr. Newton: Without endorsing everything that the hon. Gentleman said, I am aware that there is concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent coalmining areas about some aspects of the matter. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the House will be debating legislation concerned with coal this Session, so I am sure that there will be a number of opportunities to raise the issue.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate whether the Secretary of State for Health should kindly provide skilled counselling or other help for Labour Members who seem to be slating


one another on their election tactics when what they really need to do is come to terms with the fact that the British people just do not want a Labour Government?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend may think that that is a good subject for a Supply day debate, but I had better leave the Opposition to make their own decision on that.

Mr. David Winnick: Will it be possible for the Secretary of State for Social Security to make a statement early next week on whether a formal application will be made by the British authorities to ensure that any funds owned by the Maxwell foundation are returned to this country to be used for the pensioners who were swindled? Is he aware that, when we went to the Swiss embassy yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and I made that point strongly and were told that no formal application had yet been made? Perhaps we could have a statement about that.

Mr. Newton: I will draw that request to the attention of my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of what has been reported from those concerned with some of the funds allegedly held in Liechtenstein, and he has probably welcomed some of the comments made in recent days about that. I am sure that the unit that my right hon. Friend has set up will do everything possible to assist in any way, whether in Liechtenstein or elsewhere, to ensure the maximum possible recovery of funds for the Maxwell pensioners.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are many matters of current concern—from the situation in Yugoslavia to the activities of certain sections of the press—which could, and probably should, be the subject of Select Committee inquiries? May we have a definite assurance that before the House rises the Select Committees monitoring the work of all Departments will be established?

Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what were intended to be as helpful as possible remarks that I made on the subject earlier. In view of the well-known fact that there must be extensive discussions on those matters, I cannot give my hon. Friend the definite assurance he is seeking, but I assure him that I shall continue to use my best endeavours to make progress along those lines.

Mr. Peter Hardy: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's responsibilities to the House, may I ask him to look soon at the question of the future leadership of the Council of Europe delegation? Does he agree—

Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with the business for next week. Perhaps he will rephrase his question so as to make it acceptable.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Leader of the House do it next week? Will he, in the coming few days, consider whether it is desirable to ensure that the democratic factor is not overlooked and the fact that it would not be desirable, although it might be unavoidable, for some Opposition Members to lodge an objection to the British credentials should an unfortunate decision be made?

Mr. Newton: I know that the hon. Gentleman raised that matter in the Council of Europe a few months ago, and I followed his comments carefully and what happened afterwards. I can do no more this afternoon than note what he has said.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make an early statement to the House about the safety of electrically operated car windows? That would provide an opportunity for us to find out what motor manufacturers are urgently doing to increase the safety of such windows, particularly by applying sensors. My right hon. Friend may care to know that the recent tragedy of Lucinda Richardson occurred to a family in my constituency.

Mr. Newton: In the light of my hon. Friend's final point, may I, on behalf of the whole House, join in the sympathy expressed by many people to the parents of the child killed in that tragic accident? I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to my hon. Friend's request.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Next week, or before the House adjourns for the summer, will the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General make a statement about the fate of Sir John May's inquiry into the miscarriage of justice in the Guildford and Woolwich cases? It is now two years and 10 months since that inquiry was set up in an atmosphere of some urgency and the Home Secretary make a statement to the House, but Sir John May has not yet commenced the main part of his inquiry. There is a widespread view that he will never be permitted to do so because of where the trail of responsibility leads.

Mr. Newton: I recall the hon. Gentleman raising that matter in the Whitsun Adjournment debate, when I ran out of time and could not comment on it. As I told him informally afterwards, I have drawn his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend. I shall do so again in the expectation that my right hon. Friend will wish to respond to him in an appropriate way.

Sir Michael Neubert: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to debate London's docklands and the project to extend the Jubilee line? Is he aware that Canary wharf accounts for only some 150 acres out of 5,500 acres in docklands, and that the Jubilee line is needed to help to revitalise south as well as east London and is of major importance to the future of our capital city?

Mr. Newton: I note what my hon. Friend has said, but he would not expect me to add to the answer given a few moments ago by the Prime Minister and, a day or two ago, by the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Is the Leader of the House aware that, whatever good wishes the House may wish to extend to the people of Denmark, leaving early for the summer recess is not one of them? I speak for all my hon. Friends when I say that we have come here to do a job and would like to continue working to a later date. Will he make a statement next week, having thought again about that date for closing down? The Government should recognise that they gave an obligation to legislate on ticket touting and, since January 1990, they have been saying that when parliamentary time allows they will


legislate on it. On 16 May, the Prime Minister said the same. We now have time to do so, so will the Leader of the House consider it?

Mr. Newton: I note the request and, with some amazement, the fact that this must be the first time that any Leader of the House, having announced the dates for a recess, has been confronted with a demand that it be delayed.

Mr. Bob Dunn: May I revert to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on traveller families? As my right hon. Friend knows, many of our constituents are fearful that they face another summer with wave upon wave of traveller families attacking our communities, with no protection from or application of the law. May we please have a debate on the matter before the House rises?

Mr. Newton: I cannot give the undertaking precisely in the terms for which my hon. Friend asks, but he will be aware of the concern expressed following the incidents that occurred in the west country a few weeks ago. The lessons of that will, as far as possible, be learned by police forces throughout the country, and that may he at least as effective as seeking to make hasty changes in legislation.

Mr. Andrew Miller: In the light of earlier comments to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about unemployment and comments earlier this week on the Rio summit, will the Leader of the House ask the President of the Board of Trade and the Department of the Environment to address the House next week on the fact that 108 people have been dismissed from the Kemira factory, which manufactures fertilisers, in my constituency? It is suffering drastically from eastern European dumping in circumstances that would be untenable in this country and in environmental conditions that we would not tolerate.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that next Thursday there is to be a wide-ranging debate on environmental matters arising out of the Rio summit. It struck me as he was asking his question that it would require only a modest amount of ingenuity to work his point into that debate.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Further to the questions of my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) and for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), will my right hon. Friend reconsider his position on gipsies? Does he agree that the problems of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 are at the root of the difficulty? Is he aware that my constituency has the biggest problem in the county of Leicestershire? Some farmers in my constituency have been told by illegal travellers that they will have their ricks and barns burnt if they do not let them reside on their land.

Mr. Newton: I deplore any behaviour of the sort outlined in my hon. Friend's latter remarks. Three of my hon. Friends have now expressed concern, which I am sure is widely shared, about the issue. I shall draw that fact to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a statement next week on the Leeds-Bradford electrification scheme for which, as the Leader of the House may be aware, authority has been granted for overhead electrical

equipment but not for rolling stock? The Government are recommending leasing, but the Industrial Bank of Scotland is refusing to go ahead on the present terms as it is unhappy about the proposed privatisation and does not believe in the marketplace when it can operate against its interests. That is placing the scheme in jeopardy. We need a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport to clarify the position on the much-needed scheme as the commuter services between Leeds and Bradford are heavily used. If the scheme does not go ahead, 200 jobs in Leeds will be lost.

Mr. Newton: In my statement, I referred to a debate next week on the remaining stages of the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Bill, and only a modest amount of ingenuity would be required for the hon. Gentleman to raise his question during that debate.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an opportunity to debate the European Union (Public Information) Bill? If the British electorate are not to be given an opportunity to express their views in a referendum, the Government should at least give them the opportunity of knowing what their Members of Parliament will decide on their behalf in light of the profound and fundamental constitutional issues at stake in any treaty of union.

Mr. Newton: Having urged the exercise of ingenuity on other hon. Members, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's ingenuity in finding a way of raising an issue about which he is anxious. However, I do not think I can promise time to debate that Bill next week.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is the second time that I have been called this Parliament, and I am delighted and grateful.
In view of recent events, in view of the fact that the Press Commission under Lord McGregor of Durris, with its self-regulatory code, is proving less efficient than its predecessor the Press Council, and in view of the fact that the trial term of the Press Commission is about to finish, may we have a debate next week on the necessity for proper regulation of the conduct of the popular press in this country?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is about to embark on a review of the Press Commission, which is coming to the end of its trial period. I am sure that in his review my right hon. and learned Friend will wish to take into account the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. John Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a full debate on the arts, certainly before the summer recess, so that the excellent new National Heritage Department can set out its arts strategy? Another reason for a debate is that the Arts Council has recently published a consultative paper on its strategy, comments on which must be returned by July. I think that my right hon. Friend would agree that the House should have a say in that consultation process.

Mr. Newton: I share my hon. Friend's view of the importance of these matters, but he would be surprised if I were to respond in exactly the way that he invites me to do. I want first to make sure that I have time for debates on the Jopling report and office costs.

Ms. Liz Lynne: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 266?
[That this House, noting that the profits of the electricity supplier Norweb have risen by 96 per cent. in the last year, calls on the company to issue a clear statement as to how the £138 million profit is to be invested; notes that all the regional electricity companies are overcharging their customers; and urges that some of Norweb's £138 million profit makes its way back to the consumers through reduced prices.]
Will he find time next week for an urgent debate on the profits of all the privatised utilities?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady would be surprised if I were to respond quite as she requests me to. I merely observe that I sometimes wonder about the complaints that I hear to the effect that many industries which for long periods performed extremely badly and invested far too little are now far more successful and are investing large sums in providing much better services for their consumers.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend initiate an early debate on law and order, especially to emphasise what happens to offenders who are on bail, on parole or on home release from prison, and the problems of ensuring that those who have left prison do not reoffend? Chief police officers are keen that those whom their officers arrest should not immediately return to the streets to offend again before they even come to court.

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise an early debate on that, although I well understand my hon. Friend's concern and will draw it to the attention of the Home Secretary.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement to be made by the Government on the proposed halving of the number of Customs officials engaged in anti-smuggling activities at Birmingham and Coventry airports—cuts which could open the west midlands to the easier importation of drugs, pornography and terrorism? Can the statement be made in the light of the Prime Minister's recent commitment to maintaining effective border controls—a commitment which will have a shamefully hollow ring if the cuts take place?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman acknowledges by implication the determination that the British Government have expressed on a number of occasions to ensure the continued effectiveness of controls to prevent, for instance, drug offences. I also note the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I know that the Leader of the House will not be aware of the details, but recently the Department of Transport sanctioned the closure of the driving test centre in Rutherglen without giving notice to the public or me. Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's support for the citizens charter, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to come to the House next week to make a statement that matches the ideals of the citizens charter against the behaviour of the Department of Transport?

Mr. Newton: I must acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman is right to think that news of the closure of the

driving test centre at Rutherglen had not yet reached the Privy Council Office or that of the Leader of the House, but I will ensure that the news reaches the office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. Norman Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the Prime Minister state that the Government continue to take stock of the Scottish situation that resulted from the general election. What is the apparatus within the Government for the stocktaking? When will it be completed? And may we have a debate on the future of the government of Scotland?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman obviously heard what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister's questions. I intend to take the cautious line of adding nothing to it.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: As it appears that the Home Office is reviewing the rules and procedures for dealing with entry clearance appeals on cases refused under the primary-purpose rule, and that such cases are not being listed for appeal, will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House on the exact purpose and, in due course, the outcome of that review? It appears that it is connected with a case before the European Court on which judgment is expected in late July, so may we have a statement before the House rises for the summer recess so that changes on this important matter are not made at a time when the House is in recess?

Mr. Newton: I am beginning to feel, as on one previous such occasion, that I am being asked questions that hon. Members were unable to ask during Home Office questions earlier. However, I shall draw that question to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that many hon. Members representing constituents who are facing acute difficulties during the summer while the recession continues and unemployment continues to rise do not share the satisfaction evident on the Government Benches at the unduly long summer recess? Will it not be the longest recess of modern times, and does not that suggest that the Government are running out of steam in their first year?

Mr. Newton: Anyone who believes that will believe anything.

Mr. Mike Hall: Will the Leader of the House read early-day motion 201?
[That this House calls upon the Government to support Article 89 of the European Parliament resolution on a Community tourism policy by instigating a scheme of compensation for tourists who are not only victims of crime but who have suffered bodily harm as a result of a criminal act; and believes such compensation should be set at a European average level with an addition for any legal costs that may be necessary.]
It calls upon the Government to support moves in the European Parliament to introduce a compensation scheme for the victims of crime and those who have suffered actual bodily harm as a criminal act which should be paid at European level with additional payments for any legal costs incurred. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week to explain why Britain is opposing such moves in the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Newton: I understand that Britain already has probably the most generous criminal injuries compensation scheme anywhere. More than 60,000 claims were resolved in 1991–92 and the better part of £150 million was paid in compensation. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept too many strictures on the Government's record in that respect.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Madam Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the four motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

COAL INDUSTRY

That the draft Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

PARALYTIC SHELLFISH POISONING

That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 1387) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Question agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 1974

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 2nd June, be approved.
The draft order renews the temporary provisions in the Northern Ireland Act 1974, under which government by direct rule continues in Northern Ireland. I accordingly owe it to the House to give an account, obviously curtailed, of the Government's stewardship in Northern Ireland during the past year. In particular, I shall describe how, through talks with and between the four main constitutional parties, we have advanced our search for alternative political structures, just and durable in character, by which Northern Ireland may in future with general acceptance be governed.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I apologise for interrupting the Secretary of State so early in his speech, but does he agree that those of us who have been involved in the talks have a responsibility to preserve the degree of confidentiality which has been so valuable thus far? For that reason, I do not intend to contribute to the debate. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also support my word of caution to the news industry, particularly the London heavies which persist in publishing reports which will destroy their credibility when they are contradicted by the facts?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I warmly agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of confidentiality. We have gained greatly from the extent to which the undertakings that all gave have been complied with. It is of great importance, at what is a particularly sensitive time in the process, that discussions take place within the privacy of the meetings themselves and are not conducted or supplemented in public. As to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, what he said speaks for itself.
What is our purpose in Northern Ireland? It is primarily to help the people of Northern Ireland themselves to secure a tranquil, just and prosperous way of life. Its people remain divided as a community, but I sense that increasingly there is manifested by ordinary people from each side a deep desire to see co-operation taking place to secure that aim. It is the Government's desire to foster that, because the people of Northern Ireland reside in what is part of the United Kingdom; not simply by virtue of the cartogropher's pen but by the will of a majority of them. They have and will continue to have from us the constitutional guarantee whose terms are very familiar to the House. We owe them that responsibility to help, just as we owe it to the peoples of England, Wales and Scotland.
The Government are in no doubt that the present arrangements for dealing with Northern Ireland's affairs must remain in place for the time being; but they are very long in the tooth—much longer in the tooth than is becoming for arrangements that were intended from the outset to be interim. We want the indignity that is inherent in those arrangements to be lifted from Northern Ireland as soon as is practicable.
Political talent abounds in the Province. That talent has been and remains eager to shoulder greater responsibilities


of government within Northern Ireland, but there are complex and often conflicting interests to be accommodated—hence the Government's determination to do all in their power to help the participants in the talks to reach agreement. In the meantime, the Government will continue to do the job entrusted to them by Parliament with unflagging commitment to the people of the Province.
Let me explain how we have discharged our responsibility. Last week, the House had an opportunity to discuss security, which it did—properly and valuably—at some length. I do not propose, therefore, to detain the House long on the subject today, crucial though it is.
Over the past year, the campaign of violence by terrorists on both sides of the community has been maintained. When I opened Wednesday's debate, I illustrated the toll that had been exacted. Little is to be gained from rhetoric, for revulsion speaks for itself; nor is much to be gained from criticism that is confined to generalities rather than dealing with particulars. What is required is the resolute application of properly thought out, clearly formulated and co-ordinated policies, within the unbending discipline that is imposed on us by the rule of law. There has been, and there will be, no acceptable level of violence.
Our first priority has been to work towards the permanent elimination of terrorist crime. The Royal Ulster Constabulary, with the support of the armed forces, has operated to that end with courage and skill, and with the high degree of success that I described last week. Those forces will continue to need and receive our fullest support.
As I know the House recognises, to be fully effective security policies must be complemented by active social and economic policies: certainly that is the Government's view. The performance of the Northern Ireland economy is central to those policies. During the 1980s, Northern Ireland's rate of economic growth broadly matched the rate achieved nationally, but ever since then the local economy has been adversely affected by the worldwide recession.
None the less, the Province's economic performance has proved remarkably resilient in the circumstances. Regrettably, unemployment has risen by 5,300 over the year, and it now stands at 104,500. That figure represents 14.3 per cent. of the work force, and it is far too high. The rate of increase has, however, moderated in recent months, and is substantially below that of the United Kingdom as a whole. Similarly, although output and employment levels in Northern Ireland have fallen by about 2 per cent. over the year, that compares with United Kingdom decreases of about 3.5 per cent.
Moreover, recent business surveys point to an increase in business confidence in Northern Ireland, and to a welcome revival in export performance. Taken overall, the past year has provided encouraging evidence of Northern Ireland's economic resilience and capabilities.
The Province has a particular need for a strong economy, by reason of its special circumstances. Strengthening the economy is therefore a compelling objective for the Government, and we are pursuing it in a number of different ways. Within industrial support schemes, we have placed increasing emphasis on the types of measure that will secure material improvement in business performance and assist the companies that have

the greatest potential for growth. We have set up an industrial research and technology unit within the Department of Economic Development. That will have the task of promoting innovation and higher levels of research in Northern Ireland industry. Those matters are vital if we are to secure competitive advantages in world markets.
The Local Enterprise Development Unit has recently completed an overhaul of its portfolio of assistance so as to reflect its new approach to the task of stimulating enterprise and developing small businesses. A combination of world economic conditions and renewed paramilitary attacks on business have undoubtedly made it a difficult year for attracting inward investment in Northern Ireland.
However, I am encouraged by the fact that more Northern Ireland companies than ever before participated in Industrial Development Board-sponsored trade missions and trade exhibitions last year. They illustrated the growing willingness and ability of Northern Ireland companies to look for export markets. I have already visited a fairly new company that exports pharmaceuticals to more than 90 countries. The IDB's efforts have produced immediate results, with £12 million-worth of orders generated and potential orders in excess of £48 million.
That trend has also been seen much closer to home. The evidence is the growing interest of industry and commerce in exploiting the opportunities that exist for trade with the Republic of Ireland. The Government believe that there is scope for a substantial increase in trade, which would lead to more jobs and greater wealth in both economies. We are co-operating fully with the major business organisations to bring that about.
I pay tribute to the efforts of the Industrial Development Board. It has been working very effectively with the Irish Trade Board to develop exhibitions and road shows that will help companies from the north or south to demonstrate their products and capabilities to each other. We are seeking also to open up the public purchasing market in Northern Ireland and in the Republic to small firms from all over the island.
Good communications are vital in facilitating trade. The Belfast-Dublin rail link, which the British and Irish Governments announced two months ago, will result in valuable time savings on the journey between Belfast and Dublin. Work on it will start later this year.
During the year, the activities of the Training and Employment Agency have increasingly reflected the need to stimulate improvements in company competitiveness. Therefore, we have substantially increased the agency's budget for management development programmes and a new company development programme has been launched to assist companies to improve skill levels and performance throughout their entire organisation.
The year 1991 was encouraging for the tourism industry, with Northern Ireland recording its highest ever number of visitors—1.19 million. Within that figure there was an increase of 18 per cent. over the previous year in the number of holiday visitors, which stood at more than 250,000. Earlier this year, legislation was introduced to give more powers to the Northern Ireland tourist board. We have increased the board's budget and that should provide a solid platform for further advance in developing Northern Ireland as a competitive and attractive tourist destination.
Although it is important for the Province to be prosperous, its society must be just. Therefore, the


Government remain unequivocally committed to eradicating inequality of opportunity and relative disadvantage based on prejudiced discrimination wherever they exist in Northern Ireland.
The Making Belfast Work campaign has been at the heart of our effort and will continue to be so. This year, I announced that we were making available to the programme a further £26 million which will be carefully targeted. That will make the total allocation to date more than £100 million and by the end of 1994–95 the total will be more than £148 million.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Secretary of State's point about the Making Belfast Work campaign, but why has Belfast, South been ignored when grants have been given to north, east and west Belfast? There are some areas of extreme deprivation in south Belfast; it is not all the Upper Malone.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's proper concern. I am certain that Belfast, South is not ignored. Applications for grants under the Making Belfast Work campaign may not have been successful—not every grant can be. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who will reply to the debate, will consider that question and, if possible, reply in more detail.
Funding for the Making Belfast Work campaign is over and above the resources that Departments continue to put into these areas through their normal mainline programmes. The Government recognise, however, that significant inequalities persist in the social and economic conditions experienced in the two principal parts of the community in Northern Ireland. We believe that greater equality of opportunity can be achieved by improving the social and economic conditions of the most disadvantaged areas and people in Northern Ireland. If we can do that, the connotations for the healing of deep-rooted divisions in the community are obvious.
For that reason, the Government established the targeting social need initiative as a high public expenditure priority—the third, in fact. Targeting social need is a long-term programme. It will identify where the highest levels of disadvantage and deprivation exist and will analyse the precise extent to which Government policies have a differential impact on each side of the community. It will target resources and programmes more sharply on areas that suffer the highest levels of social and economic disadvantage. By those means, we intend to remove differentials and to rectify inequalities of that character. Work is afoot to put in place mechanisms for monitoring and reviewing not only this but other Government policies and programmes and to develop consequential action plans.
Our efforts to improve community relations between the different parts of Northern Ireland's community provide another component of our endeavour to promote a just society. We are committed to encouraging and securing greater contact between the communities.
I realise that it sounds extraordinarily trite to observe that greater acceptance of cultural diversity is necessary, but observations are trite only because they do not admit of dissent. The Government do not shrink, therefore, from proclaiming the need for acceptance, nor from putting their money where their mouth is—or, more accurately, the taxpayers' money. Support for community relations projects, co-ordinated by the central community relations

unit and the Department of Education, has increased rapidly from about £250,000 in 1986–87 to £7 million in this financial year. Those measures should, over time, yield a worthy return.
I should now like to deal with the political talks that were initiated with such patience by my predecessor. As the House will understand, the talks have been a major preoccupation since my arrival as Secretary of State. In recent weeks, there has been intense activity, to which the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) has already referred, as the parties have fully engaged on strand I issues. Those issues are to do with the nature of the relationships between the peoples of Northern Ireland, including the relationship between any new institutions and the Westminster Parliament.
The talks have been variously carried forward in plenary sessions, in sessions consisting of meetings between party leaders—either en bloc or individually with me—and in sub-committees chaired by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary or by senior officials. All involved have demonstrated an unflagging will to press on with the work in hand, even at the most difficult moments—and there have been some. I express my admiration and gratitude for that, as I do for the constructive tone of our discussions.
It would not be helpful for further progress if I were to describe the course that the discussions have taken. The important thing is that I can report to the House that in my judgment there is now wide agreement on the next steps in the process of the talks. Accordingly, on the joint invitation of the two Governments, Sir Ninian Stephen has convened a meeting of representatives of the two Governments and of the four participating parties for tomorrow. It is intended that a possible agenda for strand 2 shall be discussed. The Government and the Irish Government teams will be led on that occasion by senior officials.
The two Governments are also to hold a meeting next week to give preliminary consideration to the issues likely to arise in strand 3, when relationships on the east-west axis will be considered. The meeting will be attended, for at least part of the time, by observers from each of the Northern Ireland parties.
In my brief time as Secretary of State, I have been touched by the public's desire—"yearning" would not be too strong a word to use—that this time the talks shall succeed. I have gone out to meet people in the streets of Londonderry and Belfast, and they have impressed it on me there. I meet with it in all sectors of the community and in all places. Certainly, we can take heart from the fact that the talks continue to make headway and are following a constructive pattern.
That this is so is due to the participants' commitment and in great measure to their courage. Those qualities I know to be undiminished, but I owe it to the House and to the participants in the talks to warn that a task of great magnitude still lies ahead in the strands yet to be embarked on.

Mr. John Hume: Given what the Secretary of State was saying about the commitment of hon. Members from Northern Ireland, and given that, as is usual when Secretaries of State speak in the House, he began his remarks by guaranteeing to the people of Northern Ireland the state to which they belong, do the Government agree that, if the death and destruction that have taken place on our streets had taken place on the streets of Britain, that


would have been the major issue in the general election? If the matter were then debated in the House, would not the House be packed? It is noticeable that there is only one hon. Member here who does not come from Northern Ireland, apart from Government and Opposition spokesmen. Do not the Government conclude from that the same as appears to us—there is a total lack of interest among the people of Great Britain and their representatives in the House?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I think that I should do well to address the right hon. and hon. Members who are present rather than reflect on those who are not. However, if there is a conclusion to be drawn, it might be to reinforce all of us in our desire to end the indignity to which I referred, whereby the people of Northern Ireland have very little local representation in matters affecting their government. That should therefore spur us all on to the goal of the talks, which is to set in place—if we can do so in a just, workable, durable and acceptable way—newly devolved administrative and political structures for the government of Northern Ireland by people answerable to the people of Northern Ireland in the first instance.
I was warning lugubriously, at the end of a speech which has, I hope, been other than lugubrious in tone, that we face a task of great magnitude in the remaining process of the talks. The Government will, of course, become a participant to strands 2 and 3. There are many difficult obstacles still to overcome which have hitherto proved intractable but
if hopes were dupes, fears may be liars",
and I believe that all who are engaged are heartened and perhaps even inspired by the public desire, to which I referred, that we break out of the cycle of the past 20 years. Until we do so, Northern Ireland must continue to experience direct rule, and accordingly I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: There were times during the Secretary of State's speech when I felt that he was almost tempted to stray into the next debate, on the appropriation order. But he manfully resisted the temptation, and in the next debate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) will respond to some of the points made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
On such occasions it has become a ritual almost as old as direct rule itself to express hope that more acceptable and mutually agreed political institutions will obviate the need for a further renewal of the order in 12 months' time. This time, however, there are some reasonable grounds for genuine hope that that is more than just a pious aspiration. The talks, which have been in progress for the past eight weeks, offer the possibility—I put it no higher than that, bearing in mind the warnings which the Secretary of State has just given the House—that new agreed arrangements may be in place by this time next year.
The Opposition have given full support to the present initiative since it was launched by the previous Secretary of State in 1989, and we shall continue to do so, in the knowledge that the best way to resolve the conflict in Northern Ireland is through a process of negotiation and agreement involving all the constitutional interested

parties within the island of Ireland and between the two Governments. We therefore wish the participants in the talks well in their endeavours to secure agreement. None of us has any illusions about the difficulty of achieving that, and we recognise the great qualities of imagination and determination required of the negotiators. We firmly hope that they will live up to the expectations placed upon their shoulders not only by the people of Northern Ireland but by the people of the island of Ireland—and indeed by the people of all these islands, who have suffered and are under threat as a result of the situation in Northern Ireland.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that it is regrettable that greater interest is not shown by the House in the debate. Sadly, Members of the House may be reflecting the attitudes of constituents, and of the people of Britain in general. Indeed, I wonder if the attendance would be so depleted if a conscript rather than a volunteer army were serving in Northern Ireland.
We believe—to use a cliché—that no stone should be left unturned in the search for an agreement. We hope that the talks will cover all the relevant issues, and we feel strongly that they should move rapidly to strands 2 and 3. Above all, we hope that the Secretary of State will be able to present an agreed package to the House in the autumn, or early next year.
In the meantime, the Government remain solely responsible for the good administration of Northern Ireland. Last week we discussed security, so I have no intention of embarking upon that subject today. We shall discuss appropriation later. Now we are considering the whole subject of the direct rule of Northern Ireland, so it is important to consider one or two of the other issues, some of which the Secretary of State mentioned.
One issue which the Opposition feel must be regarded as a priority is that of equality of opportunity between the two major traditions in Northern Ireland. For us the principle of equality of opportunity is non-negotiable, and we were pleased to hear the Secretary of State underline that in his speech.
Equality of opportunity in employment is especially significant for those of us who hope to establish a just and peaceful society in Northern Ireland. A number of recent cases have shown the need for continued vigilance and progress on that score. The Government must make it clear to all employers and all employees, and especially to the state organisations, that neither they nor the House will tolerate discrimination, whether direct or indirect, and that remedial action must he taken to eliminate any unacceptable practices.
In that respect, the decision by Queen's university to review its employment practices after recent cases is to be welcomed, and we hope that it is a model that will be copied elsewhere. However, it is of the utmost regret that, years after the passage of the Fair Employment Act, it should be said of the Eastern health board by the tribunal dealing with the case of a woman applicant that it had
spun a web of deceit. It was one of the most blatant pieces of discrimination by a state authority.

Mr. John D. Taylor: That report affects my constituency. The Protestant community in Northern Ireland regrettably see the Opposition spokesman as being concerned only about the under-employment of the Catholic community. At no time does he express concern about under-employment of the Protestant community. He has now referred to two cases, both of which affect


under-employment of the Catholic community. There is massive discrimination against the Protestant community in the Eastern health board area. Some 75 per cent. of the people who live there are Protestants, yet only 55 per cent. of the employees are Protestants. When will Labour's official spokesman speak up for the Protestants of Northern Ireland as well?

Mr. McNamara: I do not speak up for the Catholics of Northern Ireland, or for the Protestants of Northern Ireland; I speak up for individuals who suffer discrimination. I will speak up in favour of those who suffer discrimination, whether Catholic or Protestant. If the right hon. Gentleman had paid a little more attention to speeches by Labour Members at the time, for example, of discussions on employment prospects at Harland and Wolff, and at times when there have been closures in other industries in Northern Ireland in which Protestants were the main employees, he would have heard vigorous attacks on Government policies that resulted in the threat of unemployment and actual unemployment for many members of the community for which he speaks. I hope that he, as a Member from Northern Ireland, does not speak only for the Protestant community, but that he speaks for all his constituents, Protestant and Catholic, who may suffer discrimination in any way.
The Secretary of State will also be aware of the increasing suggestions that race relations legislation in Britain should be extended to Northern Ireland to afford proper protection to the ethnic minorities there. Although we accept that a simple extension of the legislation would create difficulties with the existing legislation on discrimination by gender, religion and political opinion, we suggest that the Secretary of State considers the best way in which he can meet the spirit of the suggestions put forward by organisations such as the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights.
SACHR is a body whose importance the Opposition do not ignore. However, we feel that its effectiveness would be enhanced if the Government occasionally acted on its suggestions. Two years ago, SACHR produced its second report on equality. The report identified a number of issues on which progress could be made. SACHR proposed that the provisions of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 governing discrimination by Government Departments and by public bodies be strengthened and brought into line with the relevant provisions of the European convention on human rights. We believe that a bill of rights is necessary for Northern Ireland, but we think that, in its absence, partial measures such as those proposed by SACHR would at least demonstrate the Government's commitment to equality of opportunity.
SACHR also proposed that the impact of equality of opportunity and the treatment of all legislation, administrative decisions and policies should be monitored. We are happy to endorse that suggestion. We believe that such measures should be introduced immediately and that regular reports should be presented to Parliament and to any assembly that may emerge in Northern Ireland on matters such as the siting of industry and what effect that has on employment patterns in the area.
SACHR also proposed that discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of religion and political opinion be outlawed. That would bring

Northern Ireland legislation into line with sex discrimination legislation in Northern Ireland and with race relations discrimination legislation in Britain. That proposal seems eminently sensible to the Opposition.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman has spoken for some time on the laws governing discrimination, and on relating the law in Great Britain to the law in Northern Ireland. Surely, as a United Kingdom, we should have exactly the same law across the kingdom on these matters. Will he therefore support the concept of extending to the minority ethnic communities of Great Britain the laws that look after the interests of the various communities in Northern Ireland, especially in regard to employment?

Mr. McNamara: If the hon. Gentleman had read our election manifesto, he would have seen that we proposed a great strengthening of the law with regard to racial legislation within this island based on the principles and experience of what had been carried through in Northern Ireland—

Mr. John D. Taylor: There were no Labour candidates in Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNamara: The courtesy and good humour of the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) are outweighed only by his intellect and by his ability to interrupt from a sedentary position.

Mr. Taylor: When will you give us candidates?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It is widely known that seated interventions are to be deprecated.

Mr. Taylor: The Opposition spokesman has suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) should have read the Labour party manifesto. Does he understand that no one in Northern Ireland read it because the spokesman for the Labour party refused to allow candidates to stand in Northern Ireland?

Mr. McNamara: Again, the right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The spokesman for the Labour party cannot prevent Labour party candidates from standing in Northern Ireland. The decision not to organise in Northern Ireland properly rests with the conference of the Labour party, which took a wise decision on the matter. We have every confidence in our sister party in Northern Ireland, the Social Democratic and Labour party. We have every confidence in its socialist principles and its ability to carry through socialist policies. We regret only that we are not sitting on the Government Benches with the SDLP supporting us.

Mr. David Trimble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: This will be for the last time. I thought that this would be a short debate.

Mr. Trimble: I am a little curious about the hon. Gentleman's description of the SDLP as his "sister party". Did any Labour party candidates standing in the recent election receive a personal endorsement from any member of the SDLP? Did any other persons receive such an endorsement?

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Before the hon. Gentleman continues with his speech, I must inquire how this matter relates to the motion.

Mr. McNamara: The matter relates to direct rule, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Hume: As leader of my party, I make it clear that I was proud to canvass for Labour candidates in the election.

Mr. McNamara: So too was the leader of the Irish Labour party. We are indeed an international party.
The Government have not treated the second SACHR report with the importance that the issues deserve. The response contrasts unfavourably with the attitudes of previous Secretaries of State when facing an earlier SACHR report on inequality in employment. We appreciate that there are many demands on the time of the Secretary of State and of his Ministers, not least at the present time, but we regard the equality issue as so fundamental that we urge the Government to take action. No one should have an excuse to claim that the British Government act only when forced to do so by international pressure.
This debate comes at a moment when the future of Northern Ireland is in the balance. We hope that a new system of government for Northern Ireland will emerge —a system that will command the consent and loyalty of the majority of its citizens, a system that will be capable of putting an early end to violence and a system that will bring about the peace, justice and prosperity for which the people of Northern Ireland long and for which so many of them have worked so hard for so long. If they achieved that, it would be a boon to not only Northern Ireland but to the whole of the island of Ireland and to the whole of the British Isles. Regretfully, we support the continuation of the legislation.

Royal Assent

Madam Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Mauritius Republic Act 1992
Non-Domestic Rating Act 1992
Pittenweem Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1992
Mersey Docks and Harbour Act 1992
British Railways (No. 2) Act 1992

Northern Ireland Act 1974

Question again proposed.

Mr. William Ross: This has been an interesting debate so far. I begin by expressing my thanks to the usual channels and the Government for switching the orders so that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland might be discussed first. The constitutional position is the fundamental basis on which everything else in the Province is built, and it has properly been put first on the Order Paper.
I must confess that when I listened to the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) I began to wonder whether either or both of them would get around to the constitutional position. They talked about everything under the sun except that. Perhaps that is understandable, given the delicate negotiations that are being held at present. Nevertheless, this is a debate on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, its place in the kingdom and the desire of the House to uphold the will of the people of Northern Ireland to remain part of the kingdom.
The statutory instrument is short and simple; one can read it in a few seconds. It does not appear to say very much, but, of course, the consequences are far-reaching. It is not the first time that we have had such an order before us. It is now 20 years since the Stormont parliamentary system was suspended and replaced by the present temporary system. But then, I believe that income tax was originally a temporary tax-raising system. It has persisted for an awful long time. I hope that, unlike the income tax system under which we currently labour, we shall eventually see the legislation come to an end and we shall not have to come back here year after year.
There are a couple of ways in which the temporary legislation can come to an end. One is to alter the present constitutional position of Northern Ireland by restoring a devolved parliamentary system—whether it is legislative or merely administrative is, for the purpose of the argument, immaterial. The other way is by so-called total integration into the rest of the kingdom. Of course, in either case, this annual jamboree would come to an end. So long as it continues, some people are encouraged in their violent acts. I shall come back to that later.
The order is not just short. It conceals within two lines the denial of democracy, as it is commonly understood and practised in the western world, to the people of Northern Ireland. There is no democratic accountability whatever in the Province. When that is understood, people begin to understand the resentment felt by not only Members of Parliament on these Benches but many people in the Province.
The denial of democracy subsists in the fact that, although we have elections, the people who are elected have no power whatever over the disposal of the revenues expended in Northern Ireland at the highest level of Government and very little power over the disposal of resources at the level of local government, where local finance is raised and expended.
The denial of democracy also subsists in the fact that policies resisted by the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland have been put in place and sustained in an effort to buy off violent people. A great deal of what has been done in Northern Ireland has been an effort to buy off violent


people by being nice to them. It did not work when the Danes were raiding not only England but Ireland, and it is not working now. It will never work.
The end result is that the system of government is out of touch with the ordinary men and women in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State can go out on the streets of Londonderry or any village or town of Northern Ireland and talk to people there, but he is not just an ordinary chap from England. He is the Secretary of State and everyone there knows him as the Secretary of State.
When the Secretary of State makes himself available to his constituents, a different relationship pertains. When he goes to a meeting of his constituency association or holds a surgery, he will come away from such meetings or confrontations with a much clearer idea of what people think than he would ever get from talking to half a dozen folk on the streets of Northern Ireland. It is a different ball game. If the Secretary of State does not come away from meetings in his constituency with a clear idea of what people think, there is something wrong with his constituents. They must choose their words with rather more care than mine do.
The system of government in Northern Ireland is also ineffective. If the Secretary of State denies that, will he be kind enough to lay his hands on the report of yesterday's meeting of the Public Accounts Committee as soon as it is published? A scandalous state of affairs was exhibited to public view at that meeting, principally with regard to the purchase of X-ray equipment in the health service. I should like to believe that, if responsibility for such matters lay in the hands of Northern Ireland people, such scandals simply would not happen. The system of government and administration is ineffective and inefficient and it needs to be replaced. There is no reason why matters such as the purchase of equipment for the health service cannot be under the control of people in Northern Ireland.
The system is also secretive, in that no one in Northern Ireland and certainly no one on this Bench has any detailed knowledge of how, and how much, money is spent in Northern Ireland. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will come back to that point in the debate. Information on where money is spent emerges only when the consequences are seen. Sometimes that can take years; sometimes the information never emerges fully. We are aware of what has happened to money as if we are perceiving it through a mist. That is not acceptable to me and it should not be acceptable to those on either the Government or the Opposition Front Bench. People should know. We should be able to question. A Select Committee on Northern Ireland would perhaps go some way towards enabling us to do so.
When my hon. Friends and I listened to the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee yesterday, we found it not only interesting but sad. It was sad because there was no Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland on that Committee. A Northern Ireland member of the Committee would have known what matters were to be discussed and could have asked questions of people in Northern Ireland. He might have been able to put even more penetrating questions to those people appearing before the Committee than other Members of Parliament who do not have roots in the community and do not know what goes on in Northern Ireland. Personal detailed knowledge of a constituency is one of the great features of

the House of Commons system of government and we should not abandon it in Northern Ireland. A vacuum exists at that level which needs to be filled.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of our party, has already said that he does not propose to take part in the debate because of the present discussions. Given the delicate nature of what is apparently going on, that is a wise decision. However, the discussions are designed to correct some of the matters that I have touched on in my remarks. I have no detailed knowledge of what is going on, as I am outwith those discussions.

Mr. John D. Taylor: And rightly so.

Mr. Ross: As my right hon. Friend should know, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley has taken the Trappist vow of silence in regard to those discussions and has stuck rigidly to it.

Mr. Taylor: That sounds like a sectarian comment.

Mr. Ross: My right hon. Friend is making sedentary remarks again, and they are as amusing as ever.
A team of people have been given responsibility for these matters and are getting on with it. They also know that sooner or later they will have to sell the idea to the Unionist executive—a factor that has to be kept firmly in mind.

Mr. Taylor: Is that a threat?

Mr. Ross: No, it is not a threat, merely a statement of fact. Every party has its democratic views.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member that he should be addressing me in the Chair. It looks as if a private conversation is going on on those Benches.

Mr Ross: I very much regret that you should think that you are being ignored, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have been acquainted since I came to the House and I know better than to cross swords with you because I usually come off second best.
Whenever we, who are outwith the discussions, read the press reports, watch television or listen to radio broadcasts on the subject, it is interesting. I cannot figure out who feeds those things to the media. If it is the Northern Ireland Office press officials, they are to be condemned. If the information being given out by the press and other news media is accurate, it does not square with what has been leaked out by other means and appears in other newspapers. If the information that appears in the press here and in most of the papers printed in Ireland—both north and south—is correct, there is something wrong, as one will know if one keeps an assiduous eye on The Irish Times, which seems to have not leaks but torrents. Until now it has published all, or certainly most, of the initial positions of the parties involved in the talks.
The articles printed in the Irish press and those that have appeared in the rest of the media are so different as to make one wonder who is giving who a steer. If The Irish Times is correct, the innuendo and slant of everyday press reports seem to be so far from reality that one must think that they can be designed only to create mischief, which would do no one in the island of Ireland any good.
I long ago concluded that democratic principles do not have elastic boundaries—a thing is democratic in practice


or it is not. A system is either ruled by the people or it is not, and the system in Northern Ireland is not. If some people have their way, it never will be. There seem to be many folk who are opposed to the Union and who are determined to resist the idea of democratic rule and practice to the last ditch.
Democracy cannot be denied to Northern Ireland any more than it can be denied to anywhere else. If the system that is brought into being is not democratic, it will not work; and if it does not work, it will cause greater misery, for it will be proof to some people that politics has failed. If we are to avoid that danger, we must have practical and workable structures, and those can only be democratic. Nothing airy-fairy will do, or will be accepted by the people of Northern Ireland.
The crunch issue in Northern Ireland is not social and economic, as is the issue between the spokesmen on the two Front Benches. In Northern Ireland it has always been a question of which nation we belong to. As far as most of us are concerned, the well-being of our people is tied in every way to the nation to which we belong. The vast majority of us desire to belong to the British nation, we consider ourselves British and we intend to stay that way. Elsewhere in the world when the power and dangers of nationalist feelings were ignored and trodden down, they burst forth again. It is very dangerous to try to tell people that they must either belong or be thrust out of the state of which they are a part. If politicians and civil servants try to bypass the will of the people, that will eventually bring its own reward. We saw that clearly in Denmark a short time ago.
People have an emotional tie to the nation to which they belong and will maintain it. Some folk like to analyse problems; some will analyse until doomsday, but will never reach any conclusions. The problem in Northern Ireland is simple. There is a divided community, but the two sides have much in common. Divided communities are not unusual but are common throughout the world. However, I reject the desire of one side of that community to cling to the idea that they must for ever be separate from the rest of the United Kingdom, in language and culture, thereby making the division within the island of Ireland deeper and more bitter.
I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has left us, as it must be especially galling to him—he has been so much in the lead in seeking ever closer union between the peoples of Europe—to find that he has to represent the separatist culture in Northern Ireland. If the desires for ever closer union expressed by the hon. Member for Foyle, which he promotes so assiduously, ever came to pass, there would not be two communities in Ireland, or a dozen in Europe, as they would all be one. If he is not working towards that end, what is he working towards, because that is the logical conclusion of his European policy?
The Government have been confused and have allowed themselves to follow a tortuous course, which has always seemed to have as its objective the avoidance of any democratic accountability in Ulster. They have been urged down that weary course by people who want a united Ireland. Perhaps we should ask why such a departure from normal democratic principles has been necessary to bring about such an end for Northern Ireland. Surely those who

instigated that journey towards a united Ireland, the purveyors of that policy, know that their product is so unsaleable that no one in Ulster who values the British connection will ever purchase it. They would try every possible course of action before they would submit to being submerged in a united Ireland.
We have had tried the concept of power sharing, which is another name for minority rule. We are now presented with the concept of foreign commissioners being selected or elected to run part of the United Kingdom. If that came to pass, it would represent an abdication of responsibility to govern by the Government. Twenty years have passed since the first concept was introduced. The introduction of the second concept now simply confirms that our political opponents know that their product is not very good and that it is not now acceptable, never has been and never will be to the vast majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland. They do not have even the confidence to defend those policies for themselves. They need others to force them down the throats of the unwilling Unionist population in Northern Ireland. That policy has not worked and will not work.
If we are to find a reasonable solution to the problems of Northern Ireland, we must consider the United Kingdom as a whole. We must have the same basic system of government throughout the kingdom, but I accept that the various parts of the kingdom need a large measure of decentralisation from Whitehall. The Whitehall machine has become far too centralised: that belief would be echoed by many people on both sides of the House. We need a basic, sound structure to which to attach, or bolt on, as the Prime Minister said, bits to meet local needs.
There is nothing new in that. The legislation on the Northern Ireland statute book has long been separate, legally, from that of the rest of the kingdom. The Scottish legal system is also different. We have a Welsh Office and a Scottish Office, so we know that it is possible to create systems of administration that are somewhat different and take care of the needs of individual parts of the kingdom. They can and should be created.
On 1 June, the Prime Minister made an interesting speech in Ayr. He set out the clear limits that he would put on such bolt-on structures. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has studied that speech carefully, because of the backwash effect it will have on thoughts of what is possible in Northern Ireland. It is clear that the Prime Minister understood that a devolved Parliament would be a disaster if it were led by separatists. He called it
a step half-way across a chasm".
He was right.
Devolution within the United Kingdom will work only if it is run by unionists, who desire to maintain the unity of the kingdom. If it is run by separatists, it will not work. It is bound to create a separate Scotland and a separate Northern Ireland, divide and destroy the kingdom and weaken its voice in the world. The Cabinet is clearly aware of that. The Secretary of State is constrained in what he can do in Northern Ireland because he knows that it must bear comparison with the policy in the rest of the kingdom. That is a fundamental fact of political life and he must learn to live with it, as the rest of us must.
It is strange that the Northern Ireland Office is unique and its policies are so different from those enunciated by the Prime Minister. The Northern Ireland Office is remote from the Prime Minister's control; it was also able to defy


the control of his formidable predecessor. It carries on its policies regardless of changes in Government, elections, changes of Prime Minister or damage to the people and society in Northern Ireland. The policy of the Northern Ireland Office is to keep Northern Ireland at arm's length, and as different as possible, from the rest of the United Kingdom. Elected Governments are supposed to make policies and to have the strength and the will to put them into practice. If there are people in the machine who do not want to carry out those policies, it is the duty of Ministers to bring in people who will.
When we look back over the last 22 years, we see a tortuous policy that has kept the constitutional position of Northern Ireland in doubt. That policy is the root cause of violence in our Province. Until the constitutional position of Northern Ireland is put beyond doubt—both in words and in action—the violence will continue. The IRA and its fellow travellers will retain the hope that they will eventually achieve their ends.
Only the Government can make the changes. They know what must be done. The 1979 Conservative Party manifesto recognised what could be done. The Government know what can and must be done now. However, only time will tell whether they have the guts and the capacity to do that or whether the present incumbents in the Northern Ireland Office will fail the people of Ulster as much as their predecessors have done. The Secretary of State knows the score. Let him get on with it.

Mr. Peter Robinson: We have been invited by the Secretary of State to support the renewal of a system that is known as direct rule. No hon. Members thus far have put on record any details about what direct rule entails. If we are to make a qualified judgment and valuation as to whether we should support such a proposition, it might be worth while considering exactly what direct rule means and how it works.
I do not intend to give a detailed critique of the Government's economic strategy in Northern Ireland. To some extent, that was done by the Secretary of State when he underlined the present high unemployment figures. Many of us, including the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), are aware of the strong criticism that the Public Accounts Committee has made of some of the Northern Ireland Office's work. I suspect that in the debate on the appropriation order there will be further criticism of the fact that tens of millions of pounds have been spent on equipment that has not been used for three years, when it probably has a life of five years only before it needs to be updated. No doubt we shall come to that later.
I do not intend to go into details on the security situation in Northern Ireland. Suffice it to say that more than 3,000 people have been murdered during the period of what is known in Northern Ireland as "the troubles". There is no sign that the Government are grasping the nettle of terrorism or that they have the will to defeat it by taking the necessary steps. The number of people maimed and mutilated in Northern Ireland is now well over 30,000. Those cold statistics of violence trip off the tongue quickly and easily, but each of them represents a real story of anguish and sorrow to families the length and breadth of Northern Ireland.
In a small community of 1.5 million people, with 3,000 people killed and 30,000 maimed and mutilated, few families have not been touched by the hand of terrorism. The failure of the Government to have the necessary resolute security initiative to tackle terrorism is inexplicable to those who have suffered at the hand of the Provisional IRA and their fellow travellers and terrorists on both sides of the community. We recognise that the terrorists are no less able today to continue their acts of terrorism than at any time in the last decade or so.
I wish to consider direct rule in terms of its political impact. When the House deals with legislation for England, Scotland or Wales, hon. Members who are sent here by their constituents have the opportunity of a First and Second Reading and Committee and Report stages of a measure, which then goes to the House of Lords, where a similar procedure takes place, and the measure may return here with amendments made in the other place. When we in Northern Ireland deal with such matters, by and large we deal with them through Orders in Council and we have the privilege of one debate, which in most cases lasts for an hour and a half.
When hon. Members who represent other parts of the kingdom deal with legislation, they can table amendments and hope to have them debated. Not so when we deal with Orders in Council. We are not permitted to amend legislation affecting important facets of life in Northern Ireland. We must take it or leave it. With a secure Government majority, that means that we must take it as presented by the Government.
In such circumstances, no real attempt is made, when we are presented with such legislation, to provide changes that would suit the people of Northern Ireland. Indeed, there is ample evidence to show that on many occasions when all the parties in Northern Ireland represented here have been opposed to legislation, the Government have thought that they knew better and proceeded with that legislation.
So we have an unrepresentative system. It is undemocratic and inefficient. If it is all of that when we are dealing with legislative matters, it is just as much that when we are dealing with Executive and administrative matters. While in every other part of the kingdom, locally elected representatives in local government on the mainland have the power to deal with matters concerning education, health, housing, planning and so on, in Northern Ireland that is not the case. There, local government does not have any of those responsibilities. Local government representatives in Northern Ireland can deal with technical services —such as choosing the day when the bins shall be emptied —with the burial of the dead and with community centres and recreational facilities, but that is the sum total of the powers of local government in Northern Ireland.
We are being asked to endorse that system. The Secretary of State presents that system to the House and asks for support. It is not a system of government that any elected representative from Northern Ireland believes is satisfactory. When other parts of the United Kingdom want to deal with issues such as health, education or trade and industry, there is a Select Committee where such issues can be dealt with in great detail. Does Northern Ireland not deserve a Select Committee? Does it not have as much right as other parts of the kingdom to handle detailed consideration of such issues? We do not have those opportunities in the House.


So direct rule is not a satisfactory system of government. As the Secretary of State knows—because I have been boring him and his colleagues for the last seven weeks—I believe in devolution for Northern Ireland. Power should be delegated to its elected representatives. That would be the best way of having local flavour in Northern Ireland legislation. It would involve using properly the knowledge of those elected directly by the people of Northern Ireland. They would have more say in decisions affecting Northern Ireland.

Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) referred to the Prime Minister's speech in Ayr. I had the privilege of being there when that speech was made. In it, my right hon. Friend demonstrated the effects of devolution on the future of Scotland and the suggestion of it being one step towards removing Scotland from the United Kingdom. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that devolution would be right for Northern Ireland? I warn him that it would be one step towards what I feel sure he does not want, which is the separation of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom.
In my view, every Conservative Member believes that Northern Ireland should be totally integrated into the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is in danger of making a speech rather than an intervention.

Mr. Robinson: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He will appreciate that in addition to making those remarks in Scotland, the Prime Minister referred to proportional representation during the election campaign as "Paddy's roundabout". Yet the Government perpetuate that system in Northern Ireland for elections to local government and, indeed, to assembly elections. So there seem to be double standards, not only in terms of devolution but in terms of representation from the point of view of the franchise.
Devolution is not new to Northern Ireland. We had it before and it was successful. I suspect that those who lived through the old Stormont Parliament, even from a nationalist's standpoint, recognise that it was more accountable to the people of Northern Ireland than under what we know as direct rule. The devolution that we had in Northern Ireland did not endanger the Union. Northern Ireland was as much a part of the United Kingdom as any other part.
I do not accept that every part of the United Kingdom must be dealt with in exactly the same way. Northern Ireland should not be dealt with in any less satisfactory a way than other parts. The remoteness of Northern Ireland from the centre of Government in the United Kingdom makes it essential that there is a form of devolution in Northern Ireland, with regional government for the Province in Ulster. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) need not worry greatly about the possibility of devolution in Scotland leading to separation. If I were allowed to go further, I would suggest to him that probably the reverse is true. Failure to have devolution in Scotland may lead to separation, and the future may reveal that to many hon. Members.
As for the relationship between direct rule and Northern Ireland, for the reasons I have stated, we need accountability in government in Northern Ireland. We

need people who are answerable to the electorate there taking the day-to-day decisions. For those reasons, the talks process is vital, and that is why my party is committed to it, recognising that Northern Ireland should remain an integral part of, and have a close relationship with, every part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, in the context of devolution—perhaps devolution throughout the United Kingdom—it may be particularly important that the talks process takes account of what happens in other parts of the kingdom.
I suggest to the Secretary of State that no Unionist representing a Northern Ireland constituency would walk enthusiastically through the Lobbies to support the renewal of direct rule. The Secretary of State did not tell the House that we are doing more than simply endorsing the renewal of direct rule. Another piece of paper goes to the heart of how decisions are taken in Northern Ireland but does not come up for endorsement by the House, despite the fact that it is part of the Government's programme in Northern Ireland. Obviously, I refer to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Direct rule permits the Government of the Irish Republic, through that agreement, to have a role in Northern Ireland greater than that exercised by any elected representative from Northern Ireland. The Anglo-Irish Agreement can be given life because of direct rule. It is one of the main reasons why Union representatives participate in the talks process with such enthusiasm.
Therefore, the only message that I can give the Secretary of State tonight is that there is no enthusiasm on these Benches for direct rule or its renewal. Like the Opposition spokesman, I trust that this is the last time that we shall have a renewal debate. I want a permanent solution to the problems that have beset Northern Ireland. I want structures of government to be set up, which the people of Northern Ireland can support. in which their elected representatives can take part. and which will bring confidence to the whole community.
The Secretary of State said that he would say little about the matters going on in the talks process and both he and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) spoke about confidentiality. As a talks participant, I am bound by the same rule. However, I can tell the House that my colleagues and I are totally committed to that process and to doing everything within our power to ensure that it works. We are also committed to the people of Northern Ireland, and we say to them that our participation in that process is consistent with the principles that we share with them: that Northern Ireland is and will remain an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: Like many Northern Ireland Members, I am circumscribed by the confidentiality to which the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) referred in terms of the Anglo-Irish talks. However, it would be permissible to say that the people of Northern Ireland, from whichever part of the community they come, earnestly desire a fruitful conclusion to those talks. They strive for a resolution to our problems, which will give them, first, peace in their communities and homes and, secondly, an opportunity to strive a little further and faster in economic and social recovery. That is why so


much rests on the participating parties and Governments in all three strands of the talks in which we are now engaged.
It would not be appropriate for me to discuss the detail of the talks in respect of the concept of direct rule. It is paradoxical that we are not allowed to address the subject matter of the debate. However, I can rebut some of the comments made in the debate. One of the problems in dealing with the situation is that people do not look at the problem before dealing with the solution. The remarks of the hon. Member for Derry, East (Mr. Ross) show that there is still a blinkered vision, at least in some quarters, of the problem before us.
To suggest that, in the present context of deaths and injuries referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast, East, the history of the past 50 years and 20 years respectively amounts to the same problem as that experienced by Wales, Scotland or England is simply to deny the existing position.

Mr. Trimble: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that substantial nationalist movements exist in Wales and Scotland, as well as in Northern Ireland. The only factor distinguishing Northern Ireland from them is the fact that some nationalists in Northern Ireland resort to violence.

Mr. McGrady: The hon. Gentleman does not do justice to history, which I know that he is well aware of. I shall not go into the historical causes of Northern Ireland's problems and the division that was imposed by force in the 1920s when Ireland was partitioned, creating the concept that force has its own success. For that reason, some people to this day take sustenance from the mistaken belief that force can achieve political change. I hope that we are in the process of illustrating clearly that that is not so.

Mr. William Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to tell the House that the Irish Republic would have come into being even if no force had been used by the IRA?

Mr. McGrady: I do not wish to be drawn aside at this sensitive moment in the talks, but history as it is written in books shows clearly that the force and the threat of force were major factors in the settlements of the early 1920s.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: On the point made by the hon. Member for Derry, East—

Hon. Members: Londonderry, East. There is the problem.

Rev. William McCrea: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member to change the name of a constituency that has been decided by the House? The name of the constituency is Londonderry, East and no one has a right to change that.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Each hon. Member must be responsible for what he says, and I would not wish to intervene in that matter.

Mr. Mallon: With reference to the point made by the hon. Gentleman who made the previous interjection, is he suggesting that, if the rising had not taken place in 1916, the Republic of Ireland would still be an integral part of Britain? If so, he is not considering the progression that has taken place within Ireland, Europe and many other parts of the world.

Mr. McGrady: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention on an intervention. On constituency names, I have been surreptitiously successful in changing Hansard to record my constituency not as "Down South" but as "South Down" for obvious reasons. It is strange that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to the 50 years before the 20 years. It is the tradition of his party and may, for all I know, be his ambition on behalf of his party today, to re-establish a totally separatist, devolved Stormont Government. Again, if he examines history on that subject, he will find that it could not survive because of the manner and means of its administration.
I have strayed into constitutional matters, which I had hoped to avoid. I must return to the Secretary of State's comments on the stewardship of the Northern Ireland Office during the past year, although he can take the credit or blame for only about 25 per cent. of that year—the tenure of his office. He said that he would like to secure a just society for the people of Northern Ireland, and I shall comment on that aspect of the stewardship as distinct from the constitutional one.
The Secretary of State said that the economy was resilient and that business confidence—inspired by the possible and long-forecast economic recovery—meant that the economy was ready to spring forward. I refer him to the conclusions of a recent report of the Department's Northern Ireland economic council which gives one of its most depressing economic forecasts of the past three years. There seems to be some contradiction between the Government's interpretation of the economy and that of the Northern Ireland economic council.
Anyone considering that report, the lack of job creation results achieved by the industrial development board and its sister organisation, the Local Enterprise Development Unit, would become despondent about where the Northern Ireland economy is heading. Many of us are disturbed and perturbed about the IDB's change of objective away from targets towards the more nebulous sectors of marketing, research and promotion which, while good and proper in themselves, will not provide signs of the efficiency and worthiness of the enterprise. I hope that, in the ensuing months, the Secretary of State and the Minister responsible for economic development will address that problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to fair employment and job opportunities. Many press reports have appeared during the past couple of weeks on the eastern health board and, more recently, about Queen's university and the can of worms that is opening there. In his wind-up speech, will the Minister of State say in what way, how often and against whom—in both the private and public sectors—the penalties of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 have been used? In how many cases have Government Departments taken action against firms and boards in the public and private sector?

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in condemning the way in which Protestants in Downe hospital in his constituency are discriminated against?

Mr. McGrady: I cannot join the hon. Gentleman in his condemnation, as it is based on a false premise. If he wishes, he can ask the Fair Employment Commission to report on that issue. He would then find that he would have to withdraw his accusation.


I well remember that there was opposition from Unionists to the concept of fair employment. There is an old saying in my constituency that one should not hide behind the bush and shake it at the same time. It seems strange for people who opposed and condemned fair employment legislation to complain that there are no weapons to defend it. Will the Minister of State tell us what action the Government have taken to deal with people and organisations who have been found guilty, particularly as appointments to some of the bodies and boards mentioned are made by Government Departments?
Health boards have recently made some catastrophic announcements. I shall parochialise the debate and draw on my experiences in South Down. In the past few months three homes have closed: St. Leonard's at Warrenpoint, and Mourne House and Navan House in Newcastle. The Cowan-Heron hospital at Banbridge has also closed, and it is proposed to close the Nidurne hospital in Kilkeel and the Downe hospital in Downpatrick. That will mean that every hospital facility in the constituency of approximately 750 square miles of mountainous terrain will be closed, as will the old people's residential homes to which I referred.
If that is how the Government intend to secure a just society in Northern Ireland in terms of equity of treatment, opportunity and availability of health resources, God help the rest of us. I appreciate that the Northern Ireland Ministers present today have not been in their positions for long, and the policies may be a hasty translation of civil service intent.

Mr. Trimble: I am sure that it was merely a slip of the tongue by the hon. Gentleman, but I must correct him. Cowan-Heron hospital is in Dromore in his constituency, which underlines the difficulties. While there is still currently a hospital in Banbridge in my constituency, which is adjacent to his, there are ominous signs that it may face severe cuts or even be closed in the near future. That would aggravate his constituents' problems.

Mr. McGrady: On this occasion, I can thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and support, and I take note of what he says about the two hospitals at Banbridge and Dromore. However, the concept is the same—a pattern of closure.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East referred to the imposition of the English health and social security regime by way of Order in Council. Implanting that system in Northern Ireland, and translating the education order—without a letter of it being changed—into an entirely different system—will reduce the effectiveness of the education system in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister ponder whether such activities are the result of financial constraints or a dogmatic translation of party philosophy? If those developments are the result of financial restrictions, we know where the answer might lie. If they are the result of party dogma, the policies must be adapted so that they suit the requirements of Northern Ireland.
I hope that the process on which we are now engaged will bring us together to address those issues. At either departmental or ministerial level, the policies seem to diminish the quality of life and the opportunities available

to the people of Northern Ireland. If that is what direct rule means for the future, the people of Northern Ireland are in for a lean time.

Mr. David Trimble: I am happy to say that, since the point when the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) intervened in the Secretary of State's speech to point out how few Members were present, there has been a slight increase in numbers in the Chamber. I could not help thinking at the time, however, that, although the Secretary of State had announced that he was using this speech to give an account of the way in which direct rule had operated over the past year, the absence of interest in the Chamber stemmed from the fact that he was not giving a proper account of direct rule. This is not a true exercise in accountability; it is merely a ritual which offers pretence accountability.
If there were true accountability, that would be shown at the Northern Ireland Office in the same way as it is shown at other Departments: the proper Committee system of the House would be used to subject the Northern Ireland Office to scrutiny. That does not happen. To pretend that a short speech delivered to empty green Benches is an exercise in accountability is to insult the intelligence.
A few months ago we marked the 20th anniversary of direct rule. It was introduced in 1972 in an Act whose title included the words "Temporary Provisions." I refer to the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972. Those temporary provisions have lasted 20 years.
When the then Administration decided in 1972 to suspend the Northern Ireland Parliament and to take direct control of affairs there, they did not need to put in place arrangements for direct rule. It was necessary only to suspend the Northern Ireland Parliament. The Parliament came into operation in 1921. Before then the affairs of Northern Ireland were treated in this House in exactly the same way as those of any other part of the United Kingdom—and so they had been ever since this Parliament was created. Since the creation of this Parliament in 1801 right through to 1921, the United Kingdom operated, generally speaking, as one political unit and the affairs of its constituent parts were handled in the same way.
Legislation meant proper legislation—the introduction of a Bill, First Reading, Second Reading, Committee and so on. That was what primary legislation meant, and matters were handled thus with no problems or difficulties between 1801 and 1921.
Between 1921 and 1972, Northern Ireland was granted devolution. The Conservative Administration wanted to terminate this form of devolution, however, and to achieve that they needed only to suspend the Northern Ireland Parliament and the status quo ante would be restored—legislation would be passed in the usual way, Ministers would be appointed in the usual way and there would be, one hoped, the usual accountability.
In 1972, the then Administration, followed by every successive one, took a deliberate decision to disapply normality so as to ensure that normal procedures were not followed. They did so by instituting for the first time in 1972 and thereafter renewing every year since the system that we call direct rule.


The Secretary of State referred to this as an inherent indignity, which is putting it mildly. The indignity is inherent in direct rule, not in the circumstances that obtained in Northern Ireland before 1972. The indignity was created for the first time in 1972 as a deliberate act of the then Government and it has been repeated by every Government since—subjecting the people of Northern Ireland to a continuing indignity. So the apologies of the Secretary of State carry no weight with anyone familiar with the situation.
What is happening is misrepresented elsewhere, too. Like other Members, I cannot comment directly on the discussions taking place elsewhere, but I want to say one thing about those talks. I refer to an editorial in The Times on Monday this week. It was a curious piece, replete with inaccuracies:
Fifteen years of direct rule are widely regarded in Northern Ireland as having been, on balance, a good thing.
There are two obvious errors in that statement. There have been 20, not 15, such years, and direct rule is not widely regarded as a good thing. One wonders what the editorial's source of information was.
The editorial goes on to say:
direct rule has left intransigence more entrenched, local politics swamped by gang war … Direct rule has driven communal leadership away from politics, leaving extremists to rule the petty baronies granted them by direct rule. Public money has been spent as nowhere else in the United Kingdom".

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Mates): That is true.

Mr. Trimble: I take it that the Minister is referring to public money having been spent in Northern Ireland as nowhere else in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Mates: indicated assent.

Mr. Trimble: The obvious rejoinder is to ask whether the money has been wisely spent, and the evidence from the Public Accounts Committee yesterday shows that it has not been.

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the confidentiality of the discussions to which I and all the other Members are adhering. What would he think of anyone involved in confidential discussions who, during those discussions, met leaders of paramilitary organisations to keep them informed of what was happening at the talks?

Mr. Trimble: I would not approve of that. I confess that I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's question. I am not aware of any such contacts with paramilitary leaders, but if the hon. Gentleman is, I should be grateful if he would tell me what they are. I am happy to give way to him for that purpose.

Mr. Mallon: Ask the Secretary of State.

Mr. Trimble: I notice Ministers shaking their heads. I know that it is a lot to ask, but perhaps when the Minister replies he will give us some elucidation—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have pointed out before that we must not have muttered seated interventions. They make for confusion.

Mr. Trimble: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has certainly caused a great deal of confusion in our minds. It seems that he is perfectly sure who has been meeting paramilitary organisations. He is free in this House to make the names public; he cannot be sued outside even if he makes an inaccurate statement. Giving the names would allow those whom he is accusing by innuendo a chance to reply.

Mr. Trimble: I entirely agree. The hon. Gentleman's comments have understandably caused a great deal of muttered bemusement. He has hinted at improper conduct by members of my party—I am sure, wrongly. Later he suggested that the matter was connected with the Secretary of State.

Mr. Mallon: I did not.

Mr. John D. Taylor: A serious smear has been cast on the Floor of the House to the effect that one of the members of one of the delegations to the inter-party talks at Stormont has been confiding details of the talks to a paramilitary organisation. The only Member of this House to have had contacts before with paramilitary organisations is the leader of the party of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who met Sinn Fein before the inter-party talks commenced. It is an even more serious matter if someone participating in the talks is passing secrets to paramilitary organisations.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said that the Secretary of State knows which member of which delegation is revealing the secrets to the paramilitaries. Will the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) ask the Minister who is to reply to the debate to reveal the name that the Secretary of State apparently has?

Mr. Trimble: I thank my right hon. Friend. I have already said that I should like whoever replies to the debate to touch on that matter. I have also given the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) opportunities to substantiate the hints that he has dropped. I was prepared to give way to him on that point earlier, and I am prepared to give way to him now.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is easy for someone to come to the House and question the integrity of a number of other hon. Members or persons connected with the talks? If such a Member does not name the person or withdraw the allegation, does the hon. Gentleman agree that that puts a question mark in the minds of a number of other hon. Members about the integrity of the person concerned? As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has brought the Secretary of State into the matter, does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the Ministers on the Front Bench should draw the matter to the Secretary of State's attention so that he can return to the House and make a statement? A serious question mark has been placed over the integrity of a number of hon. Members.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) continues, I make the point once again that interventions, however strongly felt, should be brief.

Mr. Trimble: I am sure that my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) will


take your comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, to heart. But their interventions were justified, if only to underline the seriousness of what has just happened and the reluctance of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh to speak further on the subject.
When the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh intervened, I was quoting from an editorial in The Times, which said:
Direct rule has driven communal leadership away from politics, leaving extremists to rule the petty baronies granted them by direct rule".
That is a curious sentence. There are petty baronies that operate with indirect rule and there are people who rule over petty baronies. The implication of the editorial and the way in which it is expressed is that they are extremists. They are not defined, but the earlier sentence referring to gang war might lead one to think that they were members of paramilitary organisations or other bodies. Some areas are effectively dominated by terrorist organisations, but I suppose that Ministers would say that it is not their policy to encourage those organisations.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Is it possible that, despite that juxtaposition, "petty baronies" might be a reference to the elaborate growth of quangos which are unaccountable to the House or anybody else?

Mr. Trimble: Precisely. My hon. Friend anticipates the point that I was about to make. The petty baronies that are flourishing under direct rule—they exist under direct rule and are nourished by it—to which the large sums of public expenditure to which we have referred are granted are unaccountable bodies, quangos, creatures of the Northern Ireland Office, operating in an unacceptable manner and free from any proper accountability within the House or to the House. It is towards them that criticism should be directed.
I shall not refer further to the comments in the editorial on the inter-party talks because, as we said earlier, those matters should be regarded as confidential, but I could not help but notice that, in The Times on the same day, Monday 15 June, its Northern Ireland correspondent, three times—once on the front page and twice on an inside page—said that the discussions that would take place in the afternoon of the next day were the first occasion since 1914 that there had been talks between unionist and nationalist leaders. Some of my hon. Friends are laughing, and well they might.
To say that there were no such talks after 1914 is to display a lamentable lack of knowledge about what has happened in the time in between; to ignore the discussions that took place in 1921 and 1922, particularly the Craig-Collins pact; to ignore the treaty of 1925 negotiated between north and south; to ignore the ministerial meetings that took place afterwards; to ignore the numerous meetings that took place from 1926 until the late 1960s at official level on a range of matters; and even, although it is not a matter of particular pride to me and my colleagues, to ignore the participation of some unionists in the Sunningdale talks in 1973.
That is the quality of the information available to readers of a paper of record. I can assure them that the other comments in the paper on the inter-party talks, in so far as they touch on matters of which I have knowledge, are wrong. I shall say no more about that.
In the equivalent debate last year on 20 June, when I touched on certain matters, the then Minister of State, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), said that he had no doubt that I would return to those matters. He was right: I shall. The points that I wish to develop relate to another aspect of the inherent indignity of direct rule.
The argument which I developed last year and which I want to place before the House this year is that the direct rule procedures in Northern Ireland are not just offensive, an insult and an indignity, but also contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under international law and a breach of the United Nations covenant on the protection of civil and political rights and other matters.
On that occasion, I referred to article 25 of the United Nations covenant on civil and political rights, which
states:
Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in Article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country."

The hon. Member for Peterborough endeavoured to reply to the point by saying:
I am not sure that I accepted the premise of his argument because all citizens of Northern Ireland enjoy the right to elect representatives at local and parliamentary levels and themselves to stand for election."—[Official Report, 20 June 1991; Vol. 193, c. 573.]
That is a correct and fair point to make. But it is pertinent only to article 25(b), whereas for the purpose of my argument the crucial provision is paragraph (a), which says:
take part in the conduct of public affairs.
Other international human rights documents contain equivalent provisions and spell out a little more what is meant by the phrase "public affairs." For example, in the American declaration on rights and duties, clause 20 says:
Every person having legal capacity is entitled to participate in the government of his country, directly or through his representatives".
The African declaration of rights includes exactly the same phrase:
the right to freely participate in the government of his country".
I think that the reference to public affairs implies not only the opportunity to be elected to a body, but to effective participation in governmental organisations.
Article 25 of the international covenant on civil and political rights uses the words
without any of the distinctions mentioned in Article 2".
Clause 1 of article 2 states:
Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
The point is reinforced by article 3, which states:
The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.
Article 2 mentions various distinctions—those of race, colour and sex. We are familiar with those distinctions in the context of anti-discrimination legislation; legislation


exists in part of the United Kingdom in regard to all of them. However, the article also mentions national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Surely there can be no doubt that to treat Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland differently in respect of civil and political rights is to fall foul of the anti-discrimination provision in the article.
There may be some argument about the precise definition of, for instance, "national … status" or "other status"; there may also be some argument about whether the United Kingdom contains several different nations. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that to provide different rights—lesser rights—for those in one part of the United Kingdom constitutes a breach of the anti-discrimination provision in the covenant. Linking article 2 with article 25, which relates to the opportunity to take part in public affairs or to participate in government, provides clear evidence that discrimination against part of the United Kingdom in that regard constitutes such a breach.
When I raised the matter in the House a year ago. the hon. Member for Peterborough—then Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—responded briefly in his winding-up speech. Some time later, however, on 27 September 1991, the then Secretary of State gave a slightly fuller response in an interview in The Irish Times. The interviewer had contrasted the Government's position on devolution for Northern Ireland—which they had advocated—with their opposition to Scottish devolution, and had happened to mention my name. That seemed to trigger off a slightly different response from the Secretary of State. Rather than answering the question about the contrast in the Government's two attitudes to devolution, he said:
I hesitate to cross swords with a distinguished academic … but my recollection of 1886 and the crisis in the Liberal Party when Mr. Gladstone brought forward the proposals relating to Home Rule included observations by a very distinguished constitutional lawyer who was strongly opposed to the principle of Home Rule and indeed took a High Tory position on it, but who did acknowledge as a constitutional lawyer that there was nothing about the constitution of the United Kingdom which required the manner in which the different parts of the kingdom are governed to be universal.
That of course, was a reference to Mr. Dicey.
A number of responses can be made to that. First. we are living not in 1886 but in 1992, and the United Nations covenants on international and human rights to which I have referred post date 1886. Secondly, I am not arguing for absolute uniformity; it is reasonable to expect variations. There must be some leeway, but the question is, how far can that leeway go?
In the United Kingdom, as in other countries, there are various systems of local government. England and Wales have a system that involves district councils, county councils and so on; Scotland has a system of regional councils. There are slight differences between English and Scottish local government. The differences, however, are matters of administrative convenience; they are not fundamental to the system. I doubt whether the differences between English and Welsh local government and Scottish local government can be seen as depriving people of an opportunity to participate in public affairs or in government.
But what if there were no local government? What if it were decided to abolish local government in part of the United Kingdom so that county councils, district councils, parish councils and the like no longer existed? Would that

be regarded as a breach of the articles? I think that it would. That is virtually the position in Northern Ireland. There are bodies there called district councils, but, as we all know, they have no real function. Effectively, Northern Ireland has no local government.
A good analogy is the Potemkin village. In Tsarist Russia, when the Tsar was visiting certain areas, the local administrators would build facades of villages to convince him that everything was all right: they looked fine on the outside, but the reality was somewhat different. Similarly, the Northern Ireland district council structure boasts marvellous buildings, and some roads—I shall not describe them as marvellous. Behind that facade, however, there is nothing; there is a complete absence of opportunity for participation in public affairs or government. That, surely, is a breach of the covenants to which I have referred.
The same applies to law-making functions. Hon. Members have mentioned the indignities of the Order-in-Council procedure, which deprives us of an opportunity to participate meaningfully in the way in which legislation is enacted. Again, it could be said that the empty green Benches in the Chamber reinforce the view that this particular law-making function—such as it is—is a ritual event.
What I have said does not apply only to modern international law. We are part of the United Kingdom; surely that very phrase must imply a single entity, with the same rights running through it. The principle was there, although perhaps not very clearly expressed, even in the treaty and the Acts of Union produced in 1800. Article 6 touched on what was a major point at that time—the principle that, in any treaties dealing with matters of trade, Ireland would be treated in the same way as Great Britain. Even the Act of Union included an obligation to treat all parts of the kingdom on an equal footing—limited to trade in article 6, but endorsing the principle that I am addressing: the principle of uniformity on, at least, core citizenship rights.
In a sense, it is in the treaty of European union. It tries to define the citizenship rights that would attach to the new European state—if it should come into existence, but that is another matter. The fact that the states involved felt that the treaty should specify the rights that attach to citizenship reinforces the point that certain core citizenship rights should exist throughout the Union.
I welcome the comments made about race relations legislation by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). He is right in saying that there should be protection for the civil rights of persons of different races residing in Northern Ireland. There may not be many of them, but the quality of one's rights should not depend on numbers. It should be the same whether it is a handful of people in Northern Ireland or thousands in England.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North also referred to employment. To correct comments that have been made elsewhere, let me say that we do not oppose, and have never opposed, the concept of equality of opportunity. I am glad that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North used the phrase "equality of opportunity". We are complaining about the way in which that concept is being applied by a particular quango in Northern Ireland.
Criticism has been made of my former employer, Queen's university, Belfast. It is not perfect and I will not


say that it was incapable of discriminating. In fact, I was a victim of discrimination on the ground of religion and political opinion. On that occasion I approached the chairman of the Fair Employment Commission to discuss the matter. I was left in no doubt that, if I attempted to pursue the case through him, I would be unsuccessful.
There is a distinction to be drawn between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity is consistent with fair employment legislation. To try to compel equality of outcome in every different place of employment and at every different level in Northern Ireland is foolish and unlawful. The Secretary of State is nodding his head. If he is agreeing with me, I hope that he will speak to the chairman of the Fair Employment Commission, because equality of outcome in every different place of employment in Northern Ireland is the declared policy of that quango. It is not consistent with the legislation or with good sense. To use the words that the Home Secretary used on a previous occasion, it will be damaging, dangerous and difficult.
I touch on those points because we are dealing with the concept of core citizenship rights that should include freedom from discrimination on racial and other grounds. Any concept of core citizenship rights must have at its centre the right to participate in the political process in a realistic way. The direct rule system denies that to us. Direct rule is an indignity, an insult, a breach of the United Kingdom's obligations under international law and worse. As I said at the outset, in 1972 it was not necessary for Her Majesty's Government to impose direct rule. Suspending Stormont, in the absence of any other provision, would merely have involved a reversion to the status quo before 1921. No additional legislation was necessary. The normal position with regard to legislation and administration would simply have swung into place.
Instead, the Government decided to introduce a system that kept the affairs of Northern Ireland at arm's length. That deliberate decision nto to treat Northern Ireland as a genuine part of the kingdom sent a signal to others that Her Majesty's Government were, in some respects, qualifying their attitude to the Union and the rights of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I remind the hon. Gentleman that earlier in his remarks he gave way to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). In that intervention there was the clear implication that some delegate in the talks process had been divulging confidential information to paramilitaries during a meeting that he or she may have had with those paramilitaries. When the hon. Gentleman challenged the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, he invited him to ask the Secretary of State. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to do that?

Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it again draws the Secretary of State's attention to the issue and reinforces and underlines to the Minister who will be replying that we expect this matter to be touched on so that that slur can be refuted. It is untrue of myself, and I am sure that it is untrue of my colleagues. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was referring to his colleagues or other

persons who are not present today but who are part of the talks process. All those persons deserve to have that slur removed from them.
By keeping the citizens of Northern Ireland separate, direct rule was carrying a signal to various people. This Tuesday was the birthday of a distinguished colleague who was active in the House for many years. I am referring to the former Member for South Down, the right hon. J. Enoch Powell. I remember vividly, a year or two ago, watching BBC's "Question Time" in which Mr. Powell was taking part. A member of the audience asked him when he thought that the violence in Northern Ireland would end. As quick as a flash, Mr. Powell said, "It will end when the British Government stop encouraging it." There was a gasp from some members of the audience, who did not appreciate the force or accuracy of his comment.
Mr. Powell was perfectly correct. Before violence can end, it will be necessary for Her Majesty's Government to stop encouraging it. They are encouraging violence because they repeatedly send to others, including terrorist organisations, the signal that the position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom is qualified and conditional and may change. That is an encouragement to those persons to believe that by their violence they may achieve what they would call progress. If we are to see that violence end, a significant step—it may not be complete —would be to end that signal by ending direct rule.
My next point goes back to comments made in 1986. It sums up the quality of democracy available to the people of Northern Ireland. In an interview broadcast to the electorate of Northern Ireland on the eve of the by-election referendum that my hon. Friends had organised on the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the then Minister of State said:
It doesn't matter how you vote, it won't make any difference.
As I have said, that was an accurate description of the quality of democracy. People who wish the ballot box to triumph over the bomb and bullet must ensure that voting enables elected people to play a genuine part in public affairs. That requires the ending of direct rule.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The main political parties in the Republic of Ireland—Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and Irish Labour—contested the last local elections in County Cavan. For the first time, there were candidates with another title—the pothole candidates. Not surprisingly in Irish politics, they topped the poll and won the seats. The person responsible for potholes in Northern Ireland is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; he is charged with the responsibility of checking potholes and ensuring that they are filled and repaired. That is direct rule in practice, and one day my constituents will bring to my attention the various potholes in my constituency and I will have to table a series of questions to the Secretary of State asking when he intends to fill them in.
The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that that is a ridiculous situation. It was outlined in greater detail by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who identified the nonsense of the direct rule system. The people of Northern Ireland have no say in the main public decision-making process and in decisions affecting planning, housing and most aspects of local government


such as health and education. Yet those things could be achieved if the Government had the will to introduce them in Northern Ireland.
Devolution is not necessary to give people democratic powers over planning, health, schools, roads, sewage and water supply. After all, there is no devolution in Scotland or Wales, but people there have control over those issues. There is no logical reason why such elementary matters are withheld from people in Northern Ireland.
One reason why it does not happen is the inconsistency within the Conservative party and the Government on matters affecting the government and administration of the various parts of the United Kingdom. The Government recommend inter-party talks in Northern Ireland to get an agreed solution to the next system of administration and government of that part of the United Kingdom. That, apparently, is the policy of the Conservative party; yet in Scotland it boycotts and campaigns against inter-party talks on the future administration of Scotland. The inconsistency in Conservative policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland stands for everyone to see.
Conservative candidates stood for the first time in the most recent United Kingdom election. They campaigned against devolution, yet the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), proposed a policy for inter-party talks. It was noticeable that he spent only 20 minutes campaigning for those Conservative candidates. His absence had an effect, because those candidates made little progress in the election. If the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had advocated the same policy as Conservative candidates, the people of Northern Ireland would have had more respect for the Government.
It is not good enough to say that it is for the people or parties of Northern Ireland to reach a decision on how and when they will be ruled and governed. The Government also have a responsibility, but for 21 years all Governments have shirked it. The Government must remove all doubts about the status of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to say, "Our position on Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom is well known and I need not repeat it," only to imply in his next few sentences that it is much the same as his attitude to Scotland, Wales and England. We know that that is not so, and it is misleading the House to say so. There is always a condition in the Secretary of State's support—and, in fairness, in that of his predecessors—for Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom, which does not apply to Scotland or Wales: that Northern Ireland should remain a part of the United Kingdom as long as that is the wish of its people.
The Prime Minister talks about how he will fight to strengthen and support the union between England and Scotland, but he has not yet said that he will work to support and strengthen the union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We need new consistency in Conservative party policy on the union and on how the different parts of it will be administered and governed.
The Secretary of State said that he was here to give an annual report—a bit like a school report—on how the Government had administered Northern Ireland under direct rule. Direct-rule Ministers have a difficult job. At a personal level, they are very welcome, but at a political level they represent a system of government that is

offensive to the people of Northern Ireland. They are not elected by the people of Northern Ireland, nor are they answerable to them for their decisions. Scottish Office Ministers are elected by the people of Scotland and are answerable to them for their decisions, but that is not so in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland must be involved in the administration of that part of the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State referred to transport systems and mentioned the improvement in the rail system between Belfast and Dublin. One welcomes any improvement in transport systems in the island of Ireland and the British Isles, but we must get our transport priorities right. A political decision has been made by Conservative Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office to concentrate moneys on road and rail systems from Belfast to Dublin, at the expense of our main transport systems to Great Britain. In the past few years, schemes to Larne and around the city of Belfast have been dropped and money has been reallocated to the road to Dublin. That, of course, has taken place since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
The Secretary of State, in an attempt to support his programme of improving the transport systems to Dublin, referred to the support that he was receiving from business and industry. But only 5 per cent. of Ulster business goes to the Republic of Ireland; 95 per cent. of our trade goes elsewhere, and the routes that that trade uses should be getting the priority attention of the Secretary of State. He should concentrate on the routes to Larne and from Belfast to Great Britain and actively work with the Scottish Office to improve the transport systems on the west coast of Scotland. That is where 90 per cent. of people want the routes improved, and those are the priorities on which the Secretary of State should concentrate rather than merely bringing into practice the Anglo-Irish Agreement and its preference for routes to Dublin.

Mr. Barry Porter: One of the uses of the Anglo-Irish parliamentary body is that we could make a study of the transport issue. Although 90 per cent. of the trade comes from Northern Ireland, how much trade comes from the Republic via Belfast and Larne because of Government investment in those ports? The answer is, a great deal.

Mr. Taylor: That is an important point, with which I agree. I believe that about 30 per cent. of the loads of the ferries from Lame to Scotland is now taken up by trade and business from the Republic of Ireland.
As I said, we want improvements in road and rail structures, but not just those from Belfast to Dublin. We want the Secretary of State to concentrate on the links to Larne and to make the No. 1 priority the improvement of the road and rail systems on the west coast of Scotland. Only then will the natural option of Northern Ireland industry and of southern Irish industry to use those routes be properly dealt with.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) referred to the present talks at Stormont. We all read The Irish Times every day to see what is happening at those confidential talks and, of course, the reports are of interest. We congratulate those who are contributing their time and effort to try to reach some accommodation in Northern Ireland and we wish them well in their work. Suffice to say at this stage that, just as the Anglo-Irish


Agreement is offensive and has helped to bring about the present stalemate in Northern Ireland, no agreement will be acceptable to me if it gives Dublin a role in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. I want to make that clear now.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh also made a serious accusation. He said that one of the 40 delegates taking part in the inter-party talks was having other secret meetings with a paramilitary organisation. We have many such organisations—the Irish National Liberation Army, the Irish Republican Army, the Ulster Defence Association, the Ulster Volunteer Force and others. We know that, before the talks commenced, the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party had meetings with the IRA, but I gather that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was not implying that it was his party leader who was secretly revealing what was happening in the inter-party talks with a terrorist organisation. However, he announced that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland already knew the name of the delegate to the inter-party talks who was in contact with a paramilitary organisation.
That is not only a serious slur on one of the 40 participants in the talks: it must make most of those taking part in the talks ill at ease if they know that, every time they converse at the so-called confidential talks, one of their number is revealing the contents of those talks to a paramilitary organisation. It is regrettable that, when given the opportunity by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh did not withdraw his allegation. Apparently, he stands firmly behind the allegation that a member of the Stormont talks is in contact with a terrorist organisation.
A great responsibility now rests on the shoulders of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or whichever Minister replies to the debate to clarify the serious allegation so that those taking part in the talks and the public might be put at ease. The Secretary of State or the Minister must confirm that there is no substance whatsoever to the hon. Gentleman's allegation.

Mr. Barry Porter: I shall be brief.
Complaints have been made about the green Benches always being empty for debates on Irish affairs. That is because we are sometimes subject to lectures, as though we were naughty children, about what O'Flaherty said in County Mayo in 1874. Some hon. Members could get jobs as history lecturers if the electorate were to treat them badly in due course. Someone pointed out that we live in 1992, not in the era to which reference was made.
I accept some of the criticisms that have been made about direct rule, but when it was introduced—rightly or wrongly—it was seen as a temporary short-term measure while another method, post-Stormont, could be worked out for governing Northern Ireland. I do not understand why the Government or I or any other Government supporter should be castigated for what happened in 1972. It was not our responsibility then, and, in a sense, it is not our responsibility now.
Direct rule was introduced in the best possible faith. It was to be for a short period. Stormont had not worked; if it had, it would not have been dissolved. The troubles that arose were partly the result of the political organisation

emanating from the treaty in the 1920s. Rightly or wrongly, some people regarded Stormont as a sign of Protestant supremacy. Whether they were wrong or right does not matter, because that is how they saw it, and that was part of the trouble.
Successive British Governments—mainly Conservative Governments—have struggled to find a replacement for Stormont and for direct rule. I have not approved of any of them. I did not approve of Sunningdale, although I was not then a Member of the House; nor did I approve of the sort of devolution that Lord Prior suggested when he was Secretary of State. I certainly did not approve of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and I still do not approve of it. I agree with the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor); I would oppose any solution to the problem—if it be a solution—which involved a direct input by the Dublin Government into the affairs of Northern Ireland. I would not wear that.
Some of us said that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would not work because, apart from being fundamentally wrong, it simply would not work, and it has not. Some of us said that rolling devolution would not work, and it did not. In any case, it was wrong in principle.
I hope that no one thinks that I am involving myself in a family fight, because I am not. I believe that the more Englishmen who take notice of these matters the better, but I do not know what the solution is. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that the solution was devolution, but of what sort I am not entirely sure. One hon. Member gave us a smattering of integrationism—I add my birthday congratulations to Enoch Powell—but I do not quite know what that means. It is impossible to suggest that the Province is Yorkshire or Surrey, because it is not, and self-evidently it is not.
I am sure that the Government would wish to get rid of direct rule as soon as they could. They are not power-crazed people who wish to go around filling in potholes. Of course we would like to find a sensible and democratic solution.
I also agree that it would be extremely helpful if Ministers could say in the clearest, most unequivocal terms that the unity of the kingdom includes Northern Ireland as much as it includes Scotland, Wales and England. I have asked them to do so many times over the years. I do not think that "as long as the people of Northern Ireland wish it" is a condition, but it is a flavour which need not and should not be there.
I do not know what form of government there will be in the future, nor whether the secret public talks will get anywhere. The atmosphere among the kith and kin on the Opposition Benches make me mildly suspicious that those talks will not get all that far. But please, gentleman, the English cannot solve the problem for you, but you might be able to solve it for yourselves—or perhaps there could be a combination of all those things.
There is one thing that the Dublin Government could do. They could withdraw their territorial ambition and their claim to the territory of the United Kingdom. That claim gives a bogus legitimacy to some of the activities of some of the bodies operating in Northern Ireland.
I have had a ramble round the course. It is for people in positions of power and influence in the Province to reach some accommodation and to make some progress. In the 20 years that all this has been going on more than 3,000 people have been killed. We have tried almost everything by way of political progress. I wish my right


hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State well. He knows that he has a difficult act to follow in my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), to whom I pay tribute, although I had to disagree with some of what went on in his time. At least he tried. At least the Englishmen are trying. I hope that some of the Irish will do us the honour of trying as hard.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): We have had an interesting debate which has touched on a number of topics. I am grateful to the House for the generally constructive and helpful way in which it has debated the order which will renew direct rule for another 12 months.
Apart from the present political talks, which have inevitably loomed large in the debate, many other matters have been raised, and I shall deal with them first. As has been rightly said, it is disappointing that there are not more hon. Members in the House to discuss the issues, but clearly most hon. Members are leaving the discussion to those more directly affected, and we should be grateful for that. It would be wrong to discuss such issues in Committee. The proper place to discuss so important a subject is on the Floor of the House.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) asked about the allocation of the Making Belfast Work funds. He wrote to the Secretary of State recently —on 12 June, I believe—and he will shortly receive a substantive reply. We recognise, as the hon. Gentleman must also recognise, that south Belfast receives an allocation of resources under the scheme and has an action team in place. I can assure him that its problems are taken as seriously as those of any other part of Belfast. Let us wait for the reply of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that we took no notice—or perhaps took no action—on the reports of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. In fact, SACHR is a well-respected body and the Government are fully committed to creating equality of opportunity and equity of treatment for all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. We issued a comprehensive response to the second report, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That was laid before the House and placed in the Library, and therefore made public, before the general election. It is a valuable report which should assist informed and constructive debate; we continue to examine its recommendations in consultation.
At this point it is appropriate to pay tribute to Sir Oliver Napier, who retires on 1 July, to be succeeded by Charles Hill QC. Sir Oliver has served very well indeed, and I assure both him and the House that the Government read the reports most carefully.

Mr. McNamara: I join the Minister in paying tribute to Sir Oliver Napier. Will the hon. Gentleman help the House by publishing in the Official Report the recommendations in the various SACHR reports and saying which ones the Government have accepted?

Mr. Hanley: I shall willingly consider the hon. Gentleman's request.
Last night's Public Accounts Committee meeting has been mentioned. I have not seen the questions, nor heard the answers. Some hon. Members—and perhaps some right hon. Members—who are here now were present then. However, I saw the newspaper reports when I woke up in Belfast this morning, and I believe that some hon. Gentlemen may be quoting figures from those reports. The newspapers said that £48 million worth of X-ray equipment was in store. In fact, £48 million happens to be the total value of X-ray equipment in the Province as a whole. The value of X-ray equipment in store is about £0.3 million. A press notice has been issued putting the matter straight. Indeed, the Public Accounts Committee criticised the fact that £0.3 million-worth of equipment was in store, and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State responsible for health and social services will consider the report carefully.
Notwithstanding the seriousness of the comments made by the PAC, it is a novelty to be accused of paying teachers too much. Nevertheless, I shall read what was said and see whether I draw any conclusions therefrom.

Mr. Trimble: I am not sure of the details yet, because I have not seen the PAC report, but I am sure that the Minister is aware that the complaint concerns the alleged freedom with which education boards and other bodies grant teachers premature retirement with enhanced pension rights. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the widespread belief—it certainly exists in my constituency —that there has not been equity of treatment between the controlled sector and the maintained sector with regard to enhanced pension rights for teachers taking early retirement. Written answers to my parliamentary questions have tended to bear out that belief.

Mr. Hanley: I am grateful for that clarification, and I shall examine the issue carefully when I see the PAC report and the minutes of last night's meeting.
At least four hon. Members mentioned the legislative procedures. I assure the House that the Government fully recognise that the current legislative procedures are less than satisfactory. The Order-in-Council procedure is hardly ideal, but under direct rule it is the only practicable way to deal with most Northern Ireland legislation. We have constantly invited hon. Members to enter discussions on possible ways in which the present arrangements could be improved. If it were possible to create a local administration in Northern Ireland—

Mr. Trimble: rose—

Mr. Hanley: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to give way again, I shall, but it will take time from his colleagues in the later debate.

Mr. Trimble: I shall try to observe a self-denying ordinance hereafter.
Will the Minister consider the Boundary Commissions Bill, or the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill, both of which are now going through the House, and both of which apply to Northern Ireland without causing any inconvenience?

Mr. Hanley: Indeed, perhaps hon. Gentlemen would consider exactly that experience when they determine whether the current talks will be successful, so that we can pass legislative powers back to local politicians and give them greater scope to debate and decide legislation for the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. John D. Taylor: We must pursue this matter more honestly. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) referred to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill and the Boundary Commissions Bill, which have nothing to do with the talks at Stormont. Please let us not raise that as a side issue. Such things happen irrespective of the talks at Stormont. All that was necessary in those two Bills, which apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, was one clause of five or six words saying something like, "This Bill will extend to Northern Ireland." That is all that we have to do, irrespective of the talks. Let us not use the talks as an excuse for everything that is bad in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hanley: I believe that the House knows why we have preserved a different legislative procedure for Northern Ireland. It grants to Northern Ireland the possibility of the privilege of its own government, which is largely agreed by right hon. and hon. Members. Many may disagree. We have continued with the way in which we legislate against all the difficulties. I assure the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) that there will be many changes to the legislative process and to the way in which Bills go through the House if the talks can be brought to a successful conclusion. That is not an excuse. It goes to the heart of how the legislative process for Northern Ireland will be dealt with in future.
Some hon. Members have mentioned the Northern Ireland Select Committee and the absence thereof. We believe that the arrangements for the scrutiny of matters within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are best taken forward as one of the areas under discussion in the talks. I am not at liberty to discuss whether we have mentioned the subject of a Select Committee. I say merely that it would be remarkable if, during the procedures we are undergoing, we did not mention the subject of the Select Committee. The Government's response to the report of the Select Committee on Procedure—it is largely a matter for that Committee—is to say that we are keeping the matter under review.
The Fair Employment Act was mentioned by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). Since 1 January 1990, when the Act came into force, the Fair Employment Tribunal has issued 186 decisions. The applicant was successful in five cases and unsuccessful in 21. Thirteen complaints were resolved by conciliation and the balance of complaints were withdrawn. Many other complaints await hearing. In the first monitoring round, 16 employers were prosecuted and fined up to £150, and in the second round, in 1991, five employers were prosecuted. One employer was disqualified from receiving a public contract and Government grants because of continued failure to make a return. The disqualification was lifted when the company complied. A major effort is being made to address the issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Rev. William McCrea: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hanley: I will give way for the last time.

Rev. William McCrea: There is deep concern in my constituency about the Fair Employment Commission's lack of will to tackle the problems facing many Protestants in the constituency. I have referred on numerous occasions, in the presence of the former Minister with responsibility for economic development and in the presence of Mr. Cooper, to certain areas for investigation.

I have not even had a letter acknowledging that Mr. Cooper is looking into the matter. Is it not about time that there was fair treatment for both sides of the community?

Mr. Hanley: I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. I will pass on his comments to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and I hope that he will be able to respond in due course.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) argued that the present arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland might be inconsistent with article 25(a) of the international covenant on the protection of civil and political rights. I was not aware of that article until the hon. Gentleman raised the subject in an Adjournment debate some months ago, so I studied it with some care as the Government might be the subject of accusations under that covenant. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not respond on this occasion, as I know that he can respond at length on the issue because of his very great knowledge.
The opportunities afforded to Northern Ireland politicians or citizens to participate in the Government at Westminster and at district council level, and in a wide range of public bodies in Northern Ireland, may be sufficient to fulfil the requirements of the covenant. Even if they are not, and even if there were a question about the result of the absence of any structures of government at regional level, the Government's efforts to find a solution, including the efforts we are making now in the talks process, show that we are trying to produce a wider framework for stable relationships in the community.
The vast majority of comments this evening have involved the political talks. It was natural that they should be prominent in our thoughts and in our words. On behalf of the Government, I must tell the House how much I welcome the expressions of support which have been forthcoming from hon. Members of all parties. There have been well-deserved tributes from hon. Members of all parties, which I support, to the courage and tenacity of the participants in the talks.
The obituary notices for the process have been written on more than one occasion. It is greatly to the credit of the parties that the talks are still up and running, and continuing to make headway. We are present at history in the making; I hope that the history will be good for the future of Northern Ireland.
Under the agreed ground rules, which were underlined by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), it would not be appropriate for any of us to divulge details of the discussions, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State explained that in his opening remarks. There has been a constructive and intensive engagement since the new talks reconvened on 29 April and much common ground has been identified, although there is still much to be resolved. Anyone with knowledge of Northern Ireland will know that, although much has been achieved, we are still a long way from final success. Nothing can be agreed at any one stage of the discussions until everything is agreed in the three strands as a whole. Over the weeks ahead, it will be a matter of continuing the good work of recent weeks, and of further developing the trust and understanding that have been developed so far.
The talks are an unequivocal demonstration of the right way in which to attempt to resolve differences in a civilised society. If there is to be trust and understanding based on


mutual respect, it can be achieved only through proper political dialogue, and not through guns or bombs. That is why the Government will continue to do everything in their power to ensure that the talks continue their forward momentum.
Another issue was raised by a number of hon. Members. I admit that I did not hear some of the exchanges. Neither I nor my right hon. and learned Friend has any evidence of the matters being raised, so I have decided not to pursue them at the moment.

Mr. Mallon: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hanley: I will not give way at this point, because I must end my speech. I do not intend to pursue the matter at this stage. I repeat that neither I nor my right hon. and learned Friend has any evidence of any such matter, and I stress that.

Mr. Mallon: Is the Minister saying unequivocally that the Secretary of State has no knowledge of what was suggested and that no knowledge was made available to him from any other source?

Mr. Hanley: Many accusations can be made by different people in different ways. Accusations can be made by newspapers and all sorts of comments can be made. But the Secretary of State and I must act on evidence. We have no evidence of the things that were referred to earlier.
In the meantime, through direct rule, the Government will continue to help the people of Northern Ireland to secure a tranquil, peaceful, just and prosperous way of life and one in which both sides of that community can work together to achieve that goal. I commend the order to the House.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 11.

Division No. 36]
[7.10 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Ancram, Michael
Cox, Tom


Arbuthnot, James
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Ashby, David
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkins, Robert
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dover, Den


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dowd, Jim


Bates, Michael
Duncan, Alan


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Elletson, Harold


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Boswell, Tim
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bowis, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brandreth, Gyles
Forth, Eric


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Foster, Donald (Bath)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Freeman, Roger


Burt, Alistair
French, Douglas


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Fry, Peter


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gallie, Phil


Carrington, Matthew
Gardiner, Sir George


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gillan, Ms Cheryl


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clappison, James
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hague, William


Coe, Sebastian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Congdon, David
Hanley, Jeremy


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hawkins, Nicholas





Hawksley, Warren
Morley, Elliot


Hayes, Jerry
Neubert, Sir Michael


Heald, Oliver
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patnick, Irvine


Hendron, Dr Joe
Pawsey, James


Hendry, Charles
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Powell, William (Corby)


Horam, John
Richards, Rod


Hordern, Sir Peter
Riddick, Graham


Hunter, Andrew
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jenkin, Bernard
Roche, Ms Barbara


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Kirkhope, Timothy
Spink, Dr Robert


Kirkwood, Archy
Sproat, Iain


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Stephen, Michael


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Stott, Roger


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sweeney, Walter


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sykes, John


Legg, Barry
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Lidington, David
Thomason, Roy


Lightbown, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Thurnham, Peter


Luff, Peter
Trend, Michael


Lynne, Ms Liz
Twinn, Dr Ian


McGrady, Eddie
Tyler, Paul


MacKay, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


McNamara, Kevin
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Watts, John


Mallon, Seamus
Wheeler, Sir John


Malone, Gerald
Whittingdale, John


Mans, Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Willetts, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Yeo, Tim


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mates, Michael



Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Merchant, Piers
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Mr. Sydney Chapman




NOES


Beggs, Roy
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Livingstone, Ken
Taylor, Rt Hon D. (Strangford)


McCrea, Rev William
Trimble, David


Maginnis, Ken



Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tellers for the Noes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. William Ross and


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Mr. Clifford Forsythe.


Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 2nd June, be approved.

Mr. Trimble: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the previous debate, while I was speaking, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) intervened to allege that a person involved in the present inter-party talks in Northern Ireland had arranged a meeting with unspecified paramilitary persons for the purpose of conveying to them information about the talks. I gave the hon. Member the opportunity to intervene again to identify that person and to substantiate his allegations, but he declined. However, he made a comment from a sedentary position which I did not hear clearly at the time but which some of my hon. Friends heard. When I asked him to substantiate his claim, his comment was, "You should be blushing." That is a clear allegation that I was the person he was accusing.


Needless to say, that allegation is totally false and without foundation. Is it in order for hon. Members to make such allegations and, when given the oportunity to substantiate them, to fail to do so, and to fail to withdraw them when they are clearly denied?
During the following debate, when the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh returns to the Chamber, would you give him the opportunity to do the honourable thing?

Mr. Molyneaux: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Is it further to that point of order?

Mr. Molyneaux: Yes. I think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will appreciate that I have a responsibility to protect the reputation of my team of 10 in the talks. That would also apply to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) with his team; and one other party, which is not present in or elected to this Chamber, would have the same difficulty. To avoid prolonging the discussions, perhaps the most effective way to deal with the matter would be for the Secretary of State or the Minister to say that this matter will be referred to special branch to investigate and report to the Secretary of State before the next plenary session of the four teams of 10.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members will be aware that all sorts of comments are made from a sedentary position, none of which has any status in the House. I think that that answers the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who raised the first point of order. The Secretary of State and Ministers have heard the comments made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) on the second point, and it will be for them to decide how they wish to respond.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was judged by the House for something that I was accused of saying when seated. I find it amazing that some new rule has suddenly been

introduced about such interventions. I was sitting in the Gallery, I never even stood up, and I was thrown out of the House. Hansard reported that I had said something that was in order, yet I was thrown out for saying something while sitting, and I was not in the House. My hon. Friends, sitting on this side of the House, plainly heard what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members are stretching the point. I have made my ruling and have made it clear. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will accept that. Perhaps we can now move on.

Mr. John D. Taylor: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that this is a new point of order.

Mr. Taylor: It is to confirm my—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer my question: is it a new point of order?

Mr. Taylor: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fully accept your ruling about a statement made from a sedentary position, but that was not the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), who was referring to an allegation made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) when he was on his feet. That point of order had nothing to do with the personal allegation that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) "should be blushing." It was a specific allegation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Had the right hon. Gentleman listened attentively to the whole of my response, he would have heard me say that the Secretary of State and Ministers on the Front Bench would have heard the right hon. Member who raised the separate point of order. I hope that hon. Members will confirm that. Certainly Hansard will do so. Perhaps without further ado we can move to the next order.

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): It might be helpful to the House if I make it clear that debate on the order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible, with the exception of police and security matters.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Mates): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 2nd June, be approved.
The draft order, which covers the main estimates for Northern Ireland Departments, authorises expenditure of £2,874 million for the current financial year. Taken together with the sums voted on account in March, this brings the total estimates provision for Northern Ireland Departments to £5,014 million, an increase of 9 per cent. on 1991–92 provisional outturn.
The sums sought for individual services are set out in the estimates booklet which is, as usual, available from the Vote Office. The House will be aware that the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office, for law and order services, are not covered by the order before us today.
As is the custom on these occasions, I shall highlight the main items in the estimates, starting with the Department of Agriculture. The net provision sought in the two agricultural votes amounts to some £152 million, an increase of £8 million over 1991–92. Vote 1 covers expenditure of £33 million by the Department on various market support schemes which operate throughout the United Kingdom. This includes £12 million for capital and other grants to improve farm structures, to stimulate investment on farms and for conservation—£19 million is to support farming in the less favoured areas, by means of headage payments on hill cattle and sheep.
Vote 2 seeks provision of £119 million for local measures to support agriculture, fisheries and forestry. Of that, £53 million is for agricultural, scientific and veterinary services. That covers a wide range of professional and technical services to the industry and reflects the importance of maintaining the highest possible quality of Northern Ireland agricultural products. The sum of £27 million is for arterial drainage, fisheries and forestry—including expenditure on watercourse management, angling development and the management of state forests.
The Department of Economic Development's vote 1 seeks provision of £168 million, which will enable the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland to carry out its role of strengthening the industrial base there and to meet its existing commitments, primarily in the area of selective assistance to industry. The introduction and development of internationally competitive companies, providing the basis for growth in durable employment, is the main aim around which all IDB's activities are centred. Existing companies are being encouraged and assisted to improve their competitiveness in terms of productivity, design, quality and marketing.
In vote 2, £44 million is sought for the Local Enterprise Development Unit— LEDU—Northern Ireland's small business agency. The agency is placing greater emphasis on

increasing the number, and improving the competitiveness, of small companies. Recent initiatives include the business start programme, which is aimed at assisting people to set up in business. The number of projects assisted under the scheme will be trebled to some 1,200 this year. Existing businesses will be supported through the business advance programme, which aims to assist some 2,000 local companies to stimulate growth.
Also in vote 2, £9 million is sought for the Industrial Research and Technology Unit, which was launched in March with the aim of improving the competitive edge of Northern Ireland products in an increasingly demanding marketplace. Continuous, well-directed research and innovation are crucial to long-term economic health. The unit will give a greater impetus and sharper focus to Government's activities in that important area of activity.
Finally, in vote 2, £11 million is sought to enable the Northern Ireland tourist board to assist the further development of the tourist industry. Last year, for the third successive year, a record number of visitors—1.18 million—came to Northern Ireland. An 18 per cent. increase in the number of holiday visitors confirms that Northern Ireland is again being considered as a serious contender in the world's holiday markets. The additional funds proposed—nearly £4 million more than last year—will enable the board to build on that success and, in co-operation with all involved in the industry, to realise the potential of the tourism sector to generate additional economic benefits and to create jobs throughout Northern Ireland.
The Department of Economic Development's vote 3 seeks £189 million for the Training and Employment Agency. A sum of £46 million is for the youth training programme to support 12,700 training places. Some £51 million is for the action for community employment programme, to provide 9,600 places for long-term unemployed adults in projects of community benefit. More than £18 million is for the job training programme, which offers training and work experience to unemployed adults. That is £2.3 million more than in 1991–92 and will allow the programme to expand from 3,600 places in March 1992 to 5,400 by March 1993. The sum of £13 million is for the company development programme, which will assist some 225 Northern Ireland companies to improve their competitiveness in external markets.
Since April 1991, more than 34,000 people have been placed in employment after completing programmes provided by the agency. About 35,000 people are currently engaged on various programmes. It is particularly encouraging that 90 per cent. of apprentices on training centre courses enter permanent employment on completion of their training.
A token provision of £1,000 has been taken in vote 4 to cover expenses to be incurred in the privatisation of the Northern Ireland electricity supply industry. A supplementary estimate, covering the actual expenses and proceeds from the sale, will be presented later in the year.
With regard to the Department of the Environment, £169 million is sought in vote 1 for roads, transport and ports. Some £142 million is for the roads programme, to finance the operation and maintenance of Northern Ireland's roads and bridges and for new construction and improvement works.
The Department's vote 2 covers the important area of housing, where £187 million is sought to provide assistance to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and to the


voluntary housing movement. When net borrowing by the Housing Executive, rents and capital receipts are taken into account, the total resources available for housing will be about £531 million in 1992–93.
The Department's vote 3 provides for water and sewerage services, with gross expenditure in 1992–93 estimated at £152 million. Of that, £98 million is required, mainly, for normal operation and maintenance and £54 million is for expenditure on capital works, including schemes to improve further the quality of drinking water in line with the standards laid down in European Community directives.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The Minister has said that money has been allocated for the privatisation of the Northern Ireland electricity industry. We are now discussing the water industry. Today, a report in the press said that the Government have decided to proceed immediately with the privatisation of the water and sewerage systems in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister tell us exactly what is happening about the future control of water in the Province?

Mr. Mates: I am aware of the report to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. The Northern Ireland citizens charter makes clear the Government's intention to privatise the Department of the Environment's water and sewerage functions as soon as practicable. In line with that commitment, the Government are reviewing the timetable for, and the best approach to, the privatisation. It is hoped that we will be able to make an announcement soon.
Also included in vote 4 is £38 million for urban regeneration measures, which will be targeted at areas of social, economic and environmental need. As in previous years, that will generate much higher overall investment through the successful partnerships that have been established with the private sector.
The estimates for the Department of Education seek a total of £1,213 million, an increase of 6 per cent. over last year. Vote I includes £743 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards, an increase of £54 million over 1991–92. It includes £389 million for school teachers' salaries, which should enable the pupil-teacher ratio to be maintained at present levels. Also included is £237 million for expenditure on schools and on further education services. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), made an announcement about that this morning, when he launched a report on the future structure of further education. The sum of £117 million is for libraries, youth, transport and administration. Vote 1 also seeks £50 million for boards' capital projects, including provision for new laboratories and technology workshops to enable further progress to be made on education reforms. The sum of £6 million is sought for integrated schools and £123 million for voluntary schools.
Vote 2, seeks £266 million including £89 million for universities which will enable them to maintain parity of provision with comparable universities in the rest of the United Kingdom. The sum of £126 million is for student support, including grants and student loans. The vote also covers expenditure on a range of youth, sport, community and cultural activities, including £3 million for community relations.
The next set of votes relate to the Department of Health and Social Services. In votes 1 and 3, total net provision of £1,243 million is sought to maintain and improve the standard of the Province's health and personal social services. This is an increase of £74 million over estimated outturn for 1991–92. Spending on the family health services will be £252 million, while £887 million is for health and social services boards' current expenditure. The sum of £46 million is sought for capital development to maintain a substantial programme of works, including a further £14 million for Antrim hospital.
In vote 3, £385 million is sought for the Department's administration and other costs. That includes £245 million for miscellaneous social security benefits, including housing benefit.
Vote 4 seeks £1,022 million for a range of benefits administered by the Social Security Agency. That is an increase of more than 13 per cent. on last year and includes £187 million for disability benefits, £567 million for income support and £268 million for family and other benefits.
In the Department of Finance and Personnel, vote 3, more than £4 million is sought for the community relations programme. Support for community relations projects, co-ordinated by the central community relations unit and the Department of Education, has increased from about £250,000 in 1986–87 to £7 million in 1992–93. A new feature of the programme in 1992–93 is the provision of suitable venues to encourage greater cross-community contact.
I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that all the programmes that we are discussing today have one important thing in common. To each of them applies the principles of the citizens charter. The Northern Ireland charter, which was published in February, describes how we plan to raise the standard of public services. That is supported by individual charters for the main customer-oriented services. Those explain in detail what precisely a citizen can expect of the service, what his or her rights are, and what the citizen can do if the service falls below standard.
Our programme in Northern Ireland has been launched with the advantage of a public service whose professionalism and commitment are second to none. I am therefore confident that we shall achieve the charter aim of good service, based on respect for the customer and his or her views.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is all very well for the Minister to make that sort of statement and to be applauded for it, but many people in Northern Ireland feel sore about the fact that money is being diverted to the north-south road while other roads that are needed to get us to the ferry and roads around the airport are being insufficiently funded. People are asking why that money should he diverted to the north-south communication, particularly as across the water in Scotland, our neighbour, there is great need for the railway line to be re-opened and for money to be spent on roads there to link with Northern Ireland roads.

Mr. Mates: The hon. Gentleman did not hear that matter being raised in the last debate because he was not in his place. I believe that the issue of roads is likely to


figure at some length in at least one speech to be made in this debate. Roads are the responsibility of the Minister of State who will reply to the debate.
In my opening remarks I have drawn attention to the main provisions of the order. In reply to the debate, the Minister of State will respond to points raised by hon. Members. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Roger Stott: I will limit my remarks, to enable hon. Members from the Province to take part. in the debate. At the outset I wish, on behalf of my party, to say how pleased we are to see my hon. Friend—I call him "my hon. Friend"—the Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) in his place. I am sure that during his tenure of office all the people of his constituency will be assiduously represented here. I understand that he hopes to speak in the debate.
I read an article in The Observer by the Minister of State about his hopes and aspirations for the rejuvenation of the economy of Northern Ireland. I shall concentrate my remarks on economic development and the economic future of Northern Ireland.
Ministers have a long tradition of spreading optimism about the economy of Northern Ireland, none more so than a former Northern Ireland Under-Secretary, the present Minister for Trade, who will be a hard act for the Minister of State to follow. We do not criticise Ministers for spreading optimism. That is part of their job. We are always delighted when Ministers and officials succeed in preserving or obtaining jobs for Northern Ireland, but we cannot allow Ministers to get away with facile optimism.
The Northern Ireland Economic Council published two useful reports in the last three months, one on the European Community structure and the other on economic assessment in Northern Ireland, documents which I hope the Minister has had time to read. Let us hope that Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office reject the scorched earth policy of their colleagues at the Treasury and ensure that the council continues to provide a focus for economic analysis and value to the Government, employees and trade unions. The National Economic Development Council which operated in the rest of the United Kingdom provided such useful information, and I regret its demise.
The Northern Ireland Economic Council's spring economic assessment makes gloomy reading, I regret to say. Indeed, the council admits that it has not produced such a depressing document since the early 1980s. Contrary to the trend in recent years in Northern Ireland, which was relatively insulated from the United Kingdom recession, the council concludes that the United Kingdom's recession exerts
a depressing grip on local economic conditions in Northern Ireland.
The recession is in many ways worse than the first Thatcherite wrecking job which devastated manufacturing industry. This second wave of destruction spares no sector of the economy and, what is worse, the council is convinced that, when the long-awaited recovery materialises in the rest of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland will lag behind in benefiting from the end of the recession.
In those circumstances, we have a right to expect action, not propaganda, from the Government. Can we expect to see more of the "agit" and less of the "prop" from the Minister? What measures is he taking now to

ensure that when the recession ends, Northern Ireland will benefit as much and as rapidly as other regions of the United Kingdom? The Government's self-satisfaction contrasts unfavourably with the vigorous efforts of the CBI in Northern Ireland and of the Confederation of Irish Industry to promote and provide cross-border trade and prepare the island of Ireland, including Northern Ireland, for the single market.
Lest the Minister is in doubt about the seriousness of the crisis which it is his task to resolve, the unemployment figures published this afternoon—14.4 per cent. of the work force unemployed, according to the seasonally adjusted total—are a disgrace anywhere in the United Kingdom, but they are particularly disgraceful in Northern Ireland. In addition, it was announced this afternoon that there will be 400 redundancies at Shorts. That should dispel any complacency that exists in the Department.
In recent weeks, the future of the European Community has received much attention, but we are in danger of neglecting the changes to which we are already committed under the Single European Act and the implementation of the single market. The Northern Ireland Economic Council has provided a salutary reminder that we still have a long way to go to prepare Northern Ireland for the single market, let alone the degree of European unity which Maastricht promised.
Many people in Northern Ireland, not least its elected representatives, will be keen to find out why the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary forgot that they were responsible for Northern Ireland when they agreed to exclude the Province from the cohesion fund agreed at Maastricht. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
The NEC points out that, on current trends, Northern Ireland will remain behind the EC average until well into the 21st century. The report concludes that present policies have been inadequate, particularly in relation to the structural funds. Not only has Northern Ireland not gained as much financially as it should have gained from the funds, but there is growing doubt about the effectiveness of the way in which the money is spent.
Receipts from the European social fund have fallen since 1987–88 and little has been done to create the high-tech growth industries which will be the prime beneficiaries of the single market. There is yet to be an integrated approach to rural development to counter balance the expected decline in support for agriculture. The council points to the lack of proper evaluation of programmes to see if they are working and the lack of co-ordination and integration in the various operational programmes.
In addition, it criticises the inadequate, rushed and anti-democratic way in which bids for structural fund support were prepared. What, if anything, do the Government intend to do about that? Can we expect the usual inaction, or can we at least be assured that any elected Provincewide authority that may emerge from the current talks will be associated with the next tranche of structural fund allocations?

Mr. John Hume: To put the facts on the table, will the Minister explain why, when the structural funds were increased, Northern Ireland, as an objective I region, received an increase of only 9 per cent., whereas the Republic of Ireland received 17 per cent., Portugal 114 per cent. and Greece 171 per cent.? Will the Minister explain


why our objective 1 region did so badly and why the Government failed so miserably? Instead of silently staring at me, will the Minister explain why that happened?

Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend makes his own point and I have no doubt that the Minister will have heard what he said. I am glad that he made that point because I have referred in detail to my worries about the way in which the structural fund in Northern Ireland has been handled. I have asked why the Northern Ireland economy could not benefit again from the cohesion fund. That is for the Government to answer. Regrettably, we are not on the Government Benches; therefore, it is up to Ministers to answer the questions.
I wish to discuss two other matters. The first can only be described as the rifling of the economic, social and public expenditure programme for the security budget. Such practices are unacceptable and dangerous. The Government should make it clear that the necessary security costs will be met from contingency reserves if necessary, without impinging on other programmes; otherwise, it is tantamount to telling the terrorists that they can win the economic war and make the stakes too high for the British Government. The defence of society against terrorism is beyond price, so any further rifling of other budgets to substantiate and sustain the defence and security budgets is unacceptable.
Secondly, there is much concern about the performance of the industrial development agencies in the Province—the 1DB and LEDU—in terms of job creation. The Secretary of State alluded to that earlier. In the public sector, if back office jobs are excluded, only 158 jobs were promoted by the 1DB. It is not that we have anything against back office jobs or the public sector, but one does not have to be a Thatcherite to be worried about the excessive dependence on the public sector for employment in Northern Ireland. How does the Minister intend to secure further inward investment in the light of those difficulties? 
As someone who, for the past three years, has been banging on the Dispatch box about the vacillation of the British Government and the Republic's Government about the upgrading of the Belfast-Dublin railway line, may I say how pleased I am to hear from the Secretary of State that work on improving that line will commence later this year? Not only is that line symbolic for the island of Ireland, linking Belfast to Dublin, but it makes economic and transportation sense. It also makes sense because of the single market, which is now exercising everyone's attention. It is right that the island of Ireland's economy should begin, to some extent, to integrate financial services, transport infrastructure and power supply. the island of Ireland, given its peripheral nature in relation to the rest of Europe, is to be at the races in the single market, those things must happen.
I am pleased that gas interconnectors are being provided between Scotland and the island of Ireland. I am pleased also that the Republic is considering an interconnector between Dublin and mainland United Kingdom. Furthermore, I am encouraged to see that the new team at Stormont is keen to resurrect the electricity interconnector between the Republic and Northern

Ireland. One should not allow terrorism to stand in the way of economic progress and the unification of the European grid.
Although I have been critical of some of the Government's actions, there have been substantial improvements in economic activity in the Province, largely brought about by Northern Ireland Members through self-help. They have gone out and looked for inward investment in their constituencies, and I pay them credit for doing so.

Dr. Joe Hendron: Although two months have passed, I presume that it is still in order to wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, well in your new post and a happy four or five years.
The tradition of the House is that new Members pay tribute to their predecessors. My predecessor, the President of Sinn Fein, did not take his seat in this House. Hence west Belfast had no parliamentary representation for nine years. It is fair to say that, because of adverse media coverage, my constituency has been grossly misrepresented to the world at large. A young Belfast student recently gave vivid expression to what I hope will be our shared vision for the future when he wrote:
in morning sunlight over Belfast, a fragile ray of hope grows bright".
I have been privileged to serve the people of west Belfast—Catholic and Protestant, nationalist and Unionist—as a family doctor for more than 25 years. They are magnificent people and I salute them for their indomitable spirit, resilience in adversity, kindness, courtesy and great sense of humour. When I was elected on 10 April, it was clear to me that, although the vast majority of my votes came from nationalist west Belfast, I nevertheless received a significant number of votes from Unionist-Protestant parts of the constituency. I therefore consider myself deeply honoured that my mandate crossed the sectarian and political divide.
Catholic families on the Falls road have similar problems to Protestant families on the Shankill road in terms of unemployment, inadequate housing, social deprivation and paramilitary intimidation. There is a different political emphasis between the people of the Falls and the Shankill. but I want them all to know that at Westminster I shall act with integrity at all times and represent all of them to the best of my ability with regard to their social, economic and community interests.
The constituency of Belfast. West has one of the most spectacular urban settings in these islands, situated at the edge of the Antrim plateau and dominated by the Divis and Black mountains, which arc visible from every part of Belfast. Tradition has it that St. Patrick himself established a Christian church in Belfast in 454 AD, at Sean Chill, which means "the old church" and is anglicised today as "Shankill".
Centuries later, on 14 October 1791, in Crown Entry, off High street—which exists to this day in the constituency—the first Society of United Irishmen was founded by, among others, Wolfe Tone, Henry Joy McCraken and Thomas Russell, with the aim of bringing together all the people of Ireland in a spirit of brotherhood, harmony and toleration of diversity. The late 18th century was Belfast's golden age, with a growing prosperity and a social, cultural and intellectual awakening stimulated by the American and French


revolutions. 1 pay tribute to the spirit and idealism of those first united Irishmen, and to their noble and non-violent aims that sought to unite all the people in a brotherhood of affection.
Belfast was among the first cities to be influenced by the industrial revolution. There is a 17th-century reference to a corn mill operating at Millfield, a thoroughfare that links the Falls and Shankill road. In the late 19th century a travel writer described Belfast's location as
an ugly picture in a beautiful frame".
He was referring to the appalling and crowded, two-up, two-down rows of housing in long terraces, with poor sewage and waste disposal facilities that were erected by the mill owners to house the thousands of families who flocked into west Belfast in the aftermath of the great famine of the 1840s. Unhealthy working conditions and overcrowded housing combined with limited medical facilities produced rampant disease and low life expectancy.
The constituency was, I believe, first created for the 1886 general election at the time of the first Home Rule Bill. The first Member of Parliament for West Belfast was Thomas Sexton, a member of the Irish parliamentary party and a close associate of Charles Stewart Parnell. I am honoured to continue the tradition of those who have represented my constituency in the House.
Every hon. Member has a constituency that is unique, but Belfast is peculiarly unique. I do not believe that there is any territory in these islands where people have suffered as much. More people per thousand of the population have died through violence in west Belfast than anywhere else in western Europe; the figure is just over 500. There have been, and continue to be, more people imprisoned in west Belfast per thousand of the population than anywhere else in the islands.
Using the Government's own indicators of social deprivation—the Jarman indices—west Belfast is at the top of the poverty league. The great majority of people living in my constituency and far beyond in Northern Ireland want peace. In particular, they want the paramilitaries off their hacks. The Provisional IRA has mounted a continual campaign of violence, murder, intimidation and extortion. Its members have murdered hundreds of people, both civilians and members of the security forces.
The Provos are not defenders of the nationalist people; they do not have a mandate for murder. The vast majority of Irish people—north and south—oppose them. The Sinn Fein leadership tells our people to get up off their knees, while its paramilitary wing blows the knees off our people. I am referring to the knee-cappings of young people involved in alleged anti-social behaviour.
The main loyalist paramilitary organisation—the Ulster Defence Association, better known as the UDA/UFF—has also been responsible for hundreds of murders, mostly innocent Catholics. Their most recent victim was the mother of two young children, Mrs. Philomena Hanna, who was gunned down in her workplace on the Springfield road. Yet the Northern Ireland Office has continually refused to proscribe the UDA.
I demand that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State act immediately to proscribe that organisation. It is inexcusable not to take such action. In the aftermath of the Brian Nelson case, it is important that the faceless men in charge of military and covert operations be made

accountable to both the judicial system and public representatives for their actions, as at no time can any life be sacrificed in the interest of security. Other paramilitary organisations that slaughter our people include the Irish People's Liberation Organisation, the Irish National Liberation Army and the Ulster Volunteer Force.
I appreciate that normal policing is impossible because of the IRA campaign of violence. However, the vast majority of the people in west Belfast support impartial policing; they will support the police, provided the police support the people on the ground. Young people who are continually harassed on our streets or who are treated with indignity in interrogation centres might have difficulty in giving such support. Interrogation centres would not be necessary if paramilitary organisations stopped their campaigns of violence. Yet it is morally wrong and counter-productive to ill-treat young people in centres such as Castlereagh. There is ample medical evidence that such ill-treatment has taken place. I have given such evidence. Soldiers who harass young people become recruiting sergeants for the IRA and other paramilitary organisations because they further alienate those same young people.
To the families of all those who have died in Northern Ireland—whether soldiers, policemen or civilians—I extend my sincere sympathy.
Among the greatest trials with which the people of west Belfast have to contend is the scourge of massive unemployment. Notified unemployment in the constituency as a whole is nearly 40 per cent. but in some districts such as Ballymurphy, Turf Lodge and Lower Falls, it has been reported as being more than 70 per cent. It is not unusual to meet families where the males have been unable to obtain gainful employment for two or more generations. Unemployment has always been endemic on the nationalist Falls road, but in recent years the Shankill road has also suffered badly as large companies such as Mackies have gone into decline. In estates such as Glencairn, unemployment is reported to be as high as 60 per cent.
Previous Governments have been guilty of gross neglect. However, in recent years the Make Belfast Work campaign has been having some positive effects. Government agencies such as IDB and LEDU are anxious to help. I accept that there has been an improvement recently, and the position is better than it was three or four years ago. I would like to pay tribute to the former Minister with responsibility for economic development, now the Minister for Trade, who was so genuinely concerned about deprivation in inner city districts particularly in my constituency.
Paramilitary violence has made it difficult to attract inward investment, but a number of companies are anxious to locate in west Belfast. In campaigning to bring employment to my constituency, and so ensuring a decent future for the families and young people of west Belfast, I will spare no effort to speak to any industrialist, lobby any Minister, or make any reasonable representations on behalf of all my constituents.
New and imaginative policies need to be devised—for example, a fiscal initiative that could lead to the adjustment in the rate of corporation tax for inward investment in order to make west Belfast fully competitive with the Irish Republic's 10 per cent. manufacturing tax, and greater attention to training for real jobs. The


development of the Springvale initiative is extremely important, and I am pleased to know that there will be first class training facilities for 300 young people.
I pay tribute to the dedication and commitment of the schools and to the generations of teachers, parents and pupils who despite an almost intolerable background of deprivation and for two decades of violence have turned out thousands of highly motivated, well educated and public-spirited pupils. At the same time, far too many young people, through no fault of their own, do not benefit from the education system. That problem must be dealt with as a matter of urgency.
The study of the Irish language and other cultural pursuits are much to the fore in my constituency. The promotion of the Irish language has always been close to the hearts of the people of west Belfast. Cumann Chluain Ard in Hawthorn street has been at the centre of the Irish language revival for more than 50 years, and, at Shaws road, we can also boast the only significant Irish-speaking community in Ireland. Many voluntary bodies, including Glor-nGael, have fostered a vibrant cultural life for Irish speakers in the city.
Recently there has been growing interest in the Irish language in Unionist areas. As we have a shared cultural heritage that is a welcome development. The first Irish language secondary school in Northern Ireland, Meanscoil Feirste, which opened on the Falls road last September, has so far received no Government aid. The Northern Ireland Office accepts the necessity for nursery and primary education in Irish; it is only logical that it should support this school too.
Given the history of violent conflict and social deprivation in west Belfast in the past 20 years it was inevitable that hundreds of our young people would get involved directly or peripherally with paramilitary organisations. It is important that great sensitivity and, when possible, clemency, be shown to republican and loyalist prisoners, especially if their release would not endanger the public. Just as Private Thain, whose crime was committed in west Belfast, was transferred to an English prison before his early release, so Irish prisoners in England should be allowed to serve their sentences in their own country.
It is grossly unfair that prisoners' families should be made to suffer and that they should have to make long and arduous journeys to prisons in Britain over periods of many years. There are many female prisoners from my constituency in Maghaberry prison. They have had to endure the degrading practice of strip-searching, which both they and their families greatly resent. I ask the Secretary of State to intervene immediately to stop that.
I want to refer to a prisoner who is now dead. His name was Guiseppe Conlon. He was a patient of mine who came from the Lower Falls nationalist area of west Belfast. When Mr. Conlon's son Gerard—later to become known as one of the Guildford four—was arrested after the Guildford massacre, his father came to see me in my surgery in Divis street. I still have some of his medical records. Like any father, he was deeply concerned about his son, so later that evening he crossed on the ferry to England to be near Gerard.
Guiseppe Conlon was a sick man with chronic lung disease—he would have been out of breath if he had

walked even 100 yards. On top of that he had never been to England, yet he was arrested, charged with making bombs, sentenced and eventually allowed to die in Wormwood Scrubs prison on 23 January 1980.
It did not take a forensic expert or even an intelligent judge to know that Guiseppe Conlon was completely innocent, yet to this day his widow, Mrs. Sarah Conlon—she is a great lady—has never received an apology from the Government or from any relevant authority. She too had to make the long weary trek backwards and forwards to various prisons in England, entirely at her own expense.
There are those in this House who will say that violence in Northern Ireland has been fuelled by hope—the hope that violence will achieve political objectives. That is not my view. Quite the contrary. Violence is fuelled not by hope but rather by despair, and any Member of this House who is prepared to walk the streets of my constituency with me would immediately understand and recognise that despair. If belief in society is diminished, it becomes easier to listen to voices which seek not to accommodate diversity but to eliminate it—hence the despair of young people who are daily humiliated, harassed, insulted and abused by British soldiers in their own streets. Some of these young people are involved in joyriding—joyriding which, night after night, has provoked unprecedented anger and anxiety among the residents of west Belfast.
I deviate from my prepared script at this point to say that I have read quite a bit about joyriding in various parts of England; but it all started in west Belfast. Joyriding is a misnomer. These young people kill themselves and others. Two young joyriders in Belfast were not so much shot dead by British soldiers as riddled with bullets by them. No joyrider has ever been a member of a paramilitary organisation. I have been saying that for years, and I cannot understand to this day why those two young people were shot dead. I have heard nothing more about the soldiers involved, but they were certainly not brought to court. There is an urgent need for a co-ordinated strategy to deal with this terrible problem.
It is the climate of despair which encourages violence because those who feel that despair are easy prey for those who exploit the failure of society to deal with these problems who exploit the anger and who exploit their frustration so as to suck more and more people into the descending spiral of poverty, despair, violence, destruction and economic disintegration.
My task as the Member for West Belfast must be to try to break the vicious circle: to bring hope to the streets of my city; to bring jobs for its unemployed; to bring investment for its decaying infrastructure; to bring a fair and just policy of law enforcement; and, by doing these things, to bring peace to my city.
I need the help of the Government in undertaking this work—indeed, I need the help of every Member of this House who is prepared to help. My constituents have a right to the concern of the Government and of this House. They have a right to a better future than the one which stares them in the face every day when they waken. They have a right to peace, to security, to freedom, to justice and to their fair share of prosperity.
In the words of John Hewitt, the great Belfast poet, in his poem "The Bloody Brae":
and from that mercy, kindness seized a chance, to weave together the broken halves of this land, to throw his shuttle across the separate threads and make us a glittering web, for God's delight with joy in the placing of colours, side by side.


I pledge myself to the wonderful people of west Belfast, to work for them for as long as they continue to elect me to represent them in this House.

Sir James Kilfedder: I listened with great attention to the speech by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron). His reputation preceded his appearance in the House. Therefore, I was not surprised to listen to a speech imbued with compassion and toleration. I hope that, before he leaves the House, he will see peace restored not only in west Belfast but in every other part of the Province.
The people I represent, the people of North Down, are concerned about what happens in west Belfast, as indeed they are concerned about what happens in every other region of Northern Ireland. The great dilemma for ordinary people in Northern Ireland—a dilemma that is carried on the shoulders of the Government with, perhaps, some agony—is what to do about terrorism.
If one defends people against acts of terrorism one can, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, alienate people in the community in which those terrorists live. All of us in Northern Ireland must not only pray for an end to terrorism, murder and mutilation, but work and contribute towards bringing peace to our Province. I hope that that peace will come. but it requires an effort on the part of every decent person in the Province who believes in law and order and a future for the young people of Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State, in his sober but hopeful speech this afternoon, referred to the coming single European market and the opportunities that that would provide for Ulster. His remarks were made against a background of 14.3 per cent. unemployment in Northern Ireland. Many of those who are unemployed are in west Belfast, many in the west of the Province, but a considerable number are in my constituency of North Down. Full employment—I echo the words of the Secretary of State—is one of the bases for racial and religious harmony. That is why it is so essential to deal with the terrible scourge of unemployment.
Many of those who are unemployed in North Down are school leavers and young graduates. Unemployment is a dreadful scourge. I hate to see anyone unemployed, but Many unemployed people discuss their problems with me—not only the problem of obtaining a job but that of running a home and raising a family on limited means. Unemployment is like a cancer which eats away at the self-esteem of the individual and undermines his morale. For anyone who wants to work it is an appalling experience, and for young people it is devastating. More could he done to attract new industries to the North Down area where, during the past 12 months, unemployment has increased. I therefore ask the Government to consider whether North Down is getting a fair deal in the context of Northern Ireland.
The problem in attracting inward investment is that the terrorist campaign and paramilitary activity result in a lurid and distressing picture of Northern Ireland being broadcast to the people of the United States, Japan and elsewhere. That is how people abroad view the people of Northern Ireland and the situation there. But that is not the true picture. Of course people do die dreadful deaths at the hands of the terrorists, but the majority of people in

Northern Ireland go about their daily lives doing their jobs and providing for their families. The picture that should go out is one of a beautiful land full of hope.
I have just received the CBI's special supplement on Northern Ireland. It is an extremely good document which should have the widest possible circulation. Let me quote two paragraphs from one article in the pamphlet. It says:
If only the outside world would now and again take a closer look at what is going on in Northern Ireland, rather than relying on media reports, it would surely be impressed by both the growing cross-border co-operation and the business achievements.
Because terrorist violence is newsworthy and highly visual and plays on the emotions, its place is assured in the television news coverage that is spread globally by satellite. And because these news bulletins have no time to show anything as undramatic in instant news terms as the positive side of Ulster, the imbalance is perpetuated.
Those who live in the Province realise the horror of terrorism and sometimes suffer at the hands of the terrorists who not only seek to take away life and limb, but wish to bomb more and more people on to the dole queue. The people of Northern Ireland and of west Belfast must realise that terrorism brings grief and suffering regardless of religion, whether Protestant or Catholic; it brings unemployment and all the consequences that the dole means for any person. We cannot ignore the terrorists in Northern Ireland. They kill ruthlessly and without remorse. But all of us must seek to create political stability and business prosperity which is one sound way to counter the terrorist.
Northern Ireland's principal means for publicising the Province's industrial and commercial advantages and attracting investment is the Industrial Development Board, which has been referred to by the Opposition spokesman. I pay tribute to Mr. John McGuckian, who is the dynamic chairman of that board. In the CBI's special supplement, he says:
Since 1982 when the Industrial Development Board was established, for example, more than a billion pounds of public and private sector money has been invested in large-scale manufacturing projects. To date, this partnership has resulted in the creation of around 30,000 new jobs.
A growing number of these have been in new industries such as medical technology, software development, electronics and tradeable services. The expansion of these industries is playing an important part in off-setting the decline of employment in traditional sectors such as heavy engineering, shipbuilding and linen-making.
I always demand more money for Northern Ireland. As has already been said, Northern Ireland depends to a tremendous extent on public sector employment, on the taxpayer. I recognise that, if money could bring peace to Ulster, that peace would have been bought many times over by the vast amount of taxpayer's money which has been put into the Province. The people of Northern Ireland are grateful for that money, because the Province is a part of the United Kingdom that, for over 20 years, has suffered from one of the cruellest campaigns of terrorism that any people could expect to endure.
I believe that there is an overwhelming case for a devolved Government and assembly at Stormont, where locally elected politicians would assume full responsibility for the allocation and expenditure of taxpayers' money. We must move forward, and to do so we must break the shackles of the past—the shackles of prejudice and hatred—and the mould that unfortunately divides the community into two separate camps.
I feel hopeful about the future—not just because of the talks, which may succeed or fail. I hope that the people now realise that it is in their hands to achieve some progress by helping the process of reconciliation.
Let me finish by mentioning a problem that I have raised more than once in the House, although the Minister may not know about it: the problem of Mr. Ignatius Geddis's farm, which lies next to Crawfordsburn country park in my constituency. The area is one of great natural beauty, but Mr. Geddis's farm is a dump. I could use worse language, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not wish to be reprimanded by you. It is a dump; yet tourists and local residents have to put up with it.
I have the utmost sympathy for those local people, and I put their case to the Minister's predecessor a number of times. The last letter that I received from him said that he would look into the matter again. I invited him to come and see the dump for himself. Let me now extend a warm invitation to the present Minister to come and see the beauties of North Down, and, in particular, this blot on the landscape.
Something must be done. Tourists come to the area from all parts of the world. We have heard about the increase in tourism: 1.9 million people visited the Province in 1991. I do not suppose that they come to see Mr. Geddis's dump, but that is what they see when they visit the country park or walk along the main road to observe the beauties of North Down.
The Minister should either vest the property and hand it over to the country park, or designate the area as environmentally sensitive. As I have said, those who live there have to put up with it, but people who have visited Northern Ireland telephone me afterwards to ask, "Do you know that there is an awful dump in your constituency?" I have to tell them that I have been plaguing the Department of the Environment for years about it.
Our new Minister has a tremendous reputation. I look to him to resolve this awful problem.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) on his maiden speech. We look forward to hearing more speeches from him in the future; he is certainly more welcome than his predecessor.
Let me make my usual protest about the disgraceful Order-in-Council method of dealing with Northern Ireland business. The House would be disappointed if I did not do so at the beginning of my speech. Depending on one's mood, the system could be described as a travesty of justice, a pantomime or—quite seriously—a tragedy for all Northern Ireland democrats.
If hon. Members do not mind talking in a vacuum, of course, a host of problems can be aired on such occasions. Usually, we find ourselves listening to a litany of constituency matters. Hon. Members could talk about housing and repairs; on another occasion, the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) talked about chimney flues. They could talk about electricity and the inadvisability of unnecessary privatisation. They could talk about the Department of Health and Social Services and the grants that are supposed to be available but are

not available; about the infamous social fund, which is anything but a social fund; about roads and potholes; about lack of lighting, flooding, lack of drainage and the dramatic changes that have taken place in Northern Ireland's education system. Unfortunately, those education changes have done the system no good: it has almost been destroyed, and it is still on its feet only because of the efforts of the teachers.
The hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) talked about planning. We could talk for hours about that—about the non-enforcement of conditions that should be enforced and about the fact that there is no standard planning system throughout the whole of Northern Ireland.
In many ways, using a scatter-gun approach to the order presents the Minister with opportunities to avoid answering awkward questions and to give long-winded explanations of relatively minor points. I refer, of course, to the present Minister's predecessor, as this Minister has only just entered his post.
I intend to concentrate on one of the most important subjects, which was mentioned several times during the previous debate—roads and transportation. I wish to illustrate the complete lack of long-term, consistent, sensible strategy—remembering that the sole responsibility for such matters lies with the Department of the Environment, for which the Minister is responsible.
The so-called block grant tends to encourage the incorrect assumption that Northern Ireland is in a favoured or privileged position vis-a-vis other regions in the United Kingdom. The centralised Government structure and the presence of its enabling bodies or quangos—which were referred to earlier and to which I have often drawn the House's attention—tend to support the misinformed view that seemingly enormous sums are being channelled into every conceivable area of public provision. Yet, when we analyse the expenditure per sector or per project, an entirely different and altogether more accurate picture emerges.
In respect of roads, transport and ports, the Government have stated their objectives clearly in their booklet "Northern Ireland Expenditure Plans and Priorities", Cm 1917, published in February 1992. No sensible or reasonable person could object to those objectives. The first is to
operate and maintain the road system efficiently and economically, with due precedence being given to the main traffic route network".
That is fine. The second is to
make the most effective use of the existing road system through appropriate traffic management arrangements".
That is fine. The third is to
improve and develop the road system".
That is fine. Another objective is to
make it safe for all road users.
That is to be supported.
I accept that it is not necessary for all works to have been completed yesterday, but, I challenge the system by which priorities and expenditure are determined. I do not wish to take up too much time but I must illustrate my point. The Department of the Environment published a sequence of priorities from 1987 to 1991. In 1987, according to parliamentary answers, it was said that work on the Killead bypass should start in 1989–90. Since then, it has been pushed back continually and it is now due to


start in 1995–96. Stage 2 of the A26 dualling was a priority in 1987 and was due to start in 1989–90. Work on it, too, has been pushed back and is now due to start in 1995–96.
The Newry bypass roads, in another constituency, were mentioned in the Department's programme for the first time in 1988. Stage 2 was due to start in 1991–92, but now stage two, the bridge is due to start in 1992–93 and stage three, the road, is due to start in 1993–94. Therefore, work on two roads that were priorities in 1987—the Killead bypass and the A26—has been pushed back to 1995–96, whereas work on the Newy bypass roads, which were not included until 1988, is due to start two or three years earlier.
If those facts are not a clear example of inconsistency or something more sinister, it could be said that Denmark is an enthusiastic member of the European Community. In the interests of other hon. Members, I shall refrain from presenting further instances of inconsistency, underfunding, the development of exotic—rather than vital—projects or worse.
Northern Ireland's economic arteries remain our sea routes to the United Kingdom. When the channel tunnel opens, Great Britain will no longer have to contend with the difficulties that occur at present on its shortest sea route to the continent. In contrast, Northern Ireland will continue to compete under that disadvantage. Our tourist and commercial lines of communication will continue to be our recognised sea routes to Belfast: Larne and Warrenpoint handle about 80 per cent. of our tonnage between them, and our other ports handle the remaining 20 per cent.
That is a sufficient handicap without being faced with the totally inadequate through routes from Scottish and English ports. Hon. Members representing north-west England or south-west Scotland constituencies are only too aware of the fundamental difficulties experienced on the A74 and A75. It would be hypocritical of us to criticise the Scottish Office or the Department of Transport about those roads while we tolerate the shortcomings of Northern Ireland's internal infrastructure.
We welcome the construction of the cross-harbour link, but one little thing has been forgotten. It will be unfortunate if that link means that the Belfast terminal will be in a less suitable location for foot passengers. In 1990, 2,245,000 tonnes came in through the port of Larne and 1,756,000 tonnes went out. In addition, 178,026 vehicles came in through that port and 170,113 went out. It was reported in 1986—I know that it has changed now—that Lame accounted for 85 per cent. of the passenger traffic by sea into and out of Northern Ireland and one third of all surface passengers into and out of the island of Ireland.
Therefore, it seems odd that there is no mention of Larne's chief approach road, the A8, in the Department of the Environment's priorities. It has not been mentioned since 1987. The A8 must be upgraded to the proper standard before the number of accidents increases out of control. If the Minister feels that that cannot be justified under the Government's investment appraisal criteria, perhaps he will make a case for the A8 in Northern Ireland and the A75 in Scotland to be considered as a single route and accorded similar status to that apparently received by the north Wales A5-A55 corridor. The generous investment allocated to the Welsh corridor might then be applied to the north channel, including the A8.
The Government have disregarded that vital point of economic integration. They will claim that Northern

Ireland's infrastructure and roads are of a high standard. I challenge that on two points. First, one sees that our road system has survived even the confusion of the Department of the Environment's year-on-year priority list. Secondly, relatively short, but key, sections of access roads require major upgrading. I have already mentioned the A8 to Larne, which is an essential road. I remind the House of the A26, which forms a bottleneck between the north-west and the area hospital in Antrim, the north-west and the international airport, and the north-west and the M2. That is followed closely by the Killead bypass, which blocks the access road from the south to the international airport. However, despite both difficulties, that airport handled 2.25 million passengers and 23,719 tonnes of freight in 1990.
Almost everyone, except the Department of the Environment—by that I mean the Ministers up to the present—recognise that the conditions on those sections of road are detrimental to the well being of everyone in Northern Ireland. Earlier in my remarks, I referred to the inconsistency of the Department of the Environment's priorities, which succeeded in giving greater priority to the Newry bypass roads by pushing back the legitimate claims of recognised bottlenecks at Killead, the A26 and the A8 to Larne. The A8 to Larne carries 13,800 vehicles per day, whereas the road to Dublin through Newry carries 6,000 per day.
Why has the policy changed, and who changed it? Why, suddenly, are connecting roads to the Republic a higher priority than Northern Ireland's roads? Where is the logic in completing roads that, after crossing the border, will grind to a halt because the routes with which they link will not be able to cope with the traffic in the foreseeable future? Let us get our own house in order in Northern Ireland before bending over backwards to please another country. If the Government are not prepared to do that, the only conclusion that the people of Northern Ireland will reach is that this is being done for political rather than investment reasons.
I remind the Minister that he is responsible for the roads of Northern Ireland and our connections with the rest of the United Kingdom. We expect him to carry out his responsibilities to the Northern Ireland travelling public—our commercial traffic, our business men and women and, above all, United Kingdom citizens who live in Northern Ireland.
That responsibility extends to our other major concern—expenditure on maintenance. Dr. Snaith's recent report found that 1,000 miles of road in the Province is decaying at an alarming rate. Northern Ireland Members of all parties did not require a report to tell them that. We have all complained about such matters in debates on appropriation orders. Perhaps our new Minister will resolve the situation.

Mr. William Ross: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although Dr. Snaith's report was apparently made available to the road service headquarters, we have not seen it? I telephoned the Minister's office two or three weeks ago to ask whether a copy could be made available to me, but I am still waiting. Perhaps we could be made aware of the present situation, especially as one of the report's recommendations was that lightly used roads could be dispensed with and abandoned. One


wonders what effect that would have on some of the difficulties that are experienced in rural areas in trying to get our little-used roads kept up to scratch.

Mr. Forsythe: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, with which I agree. It reminds me of when I tried to get information about quangos, only to be referred to a book in the Library, which could not give me the information that I required. Perhaps the Minister, who, I am sure, heard what my hon. Friend said, will take that into consideration.
I return to my remarks about the incorrect assumption regarding the block grant. In England and Wales, £12,500 per mile is spent on maintaining trunk roads, yet the figure in Northern Ireland is £3,700 per mile. For all roads, the figure in England and Wales is £3,180 per mile and in Northern Ireland £1,910 per mile. Dr. Snaith's report says:
However, in the absence of criteria similar to those used for the appraisal of capital schemes being used when planning expenditure on maintenance, it is difficult to be certain that the most cost-effective decisions have been taken when Roads Service allocates funds to capital schemes rather than to maintenance work.
That may account for what has been happening and may suggest trouble for the future. As roads maintenance has remained almost static since 1979, will the Government accept that the Comptroller and Auditor General has made a valid criticism in drawing attention to the importance of the road structure to business in the Province?

Rev. William McCrea: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to deal with matters that are vital to the people of Northern Ireland, particularly the people of the constituency that I have been honoured to represent.
I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) on the honour that he received in Her Majesty's birthday honours list. I listened carefully to his speech, especially to the part about the new site that will now be a tourist attraction. As I plan to visit his constituency at the weekend, I must obtain the address so that I can share with him some of the beauties to which he drew the House's attention. He has now identified a tourist spot for the future and probably will charge because of the help that he has given in putting the place on the map.
My colleagues and I will not divide the House on the order, because we are delighted to receive funds for the Province. The usual inference that is drawn in these debates, especially by hon. Members from England and Scotland, is that Northern Ireland is given preferential financial treatment. One of the reports to which I shall refer shows that that is in the minds of certain right hon. and hon. Members. I trust that, tonight, appreciation will be expressed where it is due and that certain matters that need a response will be drawn to the Minister's attention.
I represent a large rural constituency. Farming is vital to the district. Indeed, many of our people are employed in the agricultural industry and we hold it very dear. We want to ensure that decisions to be taken by the Government—not only here but in Europe—will be taken with the best

interests of the farming community at heart and that no decisions taken in the Councils of Europe will destroy or harm it.
I congratulate the new Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) on his appointment and I hope that he will gather much enjoyment from his dealings with the matters that we raise and from seeing some of the most beautiful countryside that any Minister could see—of course, I include North Down as well as the constituencies of my right hon. and hon. Friends and my own.
Some time ago, I had a meeting at Dundonald house with worried farmers and the then Minister responsible for agriculture. The farmers were worried about the meat industry and a problem being introduced into the industry by a few of their number. The deputation was to deal specifically with the problem of what is known as angel dust. Will the new Minister assure me that his Department will make certain that the problem is stamped on with resolve and determination, and that the greedy and miserable people who are putting such a vital industry in jeopardy will be removed from that industry? 
If a rogue doctor were to use practices which were not accepted by his profession, he would be removed from the list of practitioners. I believe that resolute action must be taken against farmers who are willing to put the whole industry into the melting pot for financial gain. The matter must be handled with great determination. The principle officer in the Department referred to the issue on radio and television. I pay tribute to the manner in which he dealt with the subject and trust that his resolve will be carried through into action.
I welcome the moneys allocated under the Department of Agriculture's vote 2 for the Omagh flood defence—£1,705,000 this financial year and £1,575,000 to complete the project. Will the Minister assure me that the project will be carried out and that the Department of Agriculture will work hand in hand with the Department of the Environment so that this matter, which has caused great concern and trouble around Campsey right down to Omagh, will be attended to once and for all? I hope that the moneys allocated will be spent wisely and will resolve the problem.
I appreciate the fact that before the previous Minister left office, he announced the finances that the Department would be making available. He assured me that he would endeavour to get the Department of the Environment and his Department to work hand in hand so that the best possible use of the moneys would be made. Therefore, I ask the present Minister to give me the same unequivocal assurance.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is sad that there is now no Minister to answer directly to us in the House for the largest industry in Northern Ireland —agriculture—and that the representative is in another place? Does he agree that it does not bode well for agriculture that we have no direct access to the Minister responsible?

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Robert Atkins): I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that the Under-Secretary of State who participates regularly will speak about these issues in the House and will listen carefully to what hon. Members of all parties have to say. I hope that all hon. Members will


recognise that representation of their worries and interests will not diminish because my hon. Friend will convey messages as necessary to my noble Friend in another place.

Rev. William McCrea: I thank the Minister for his information. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was pointing out that he and many people genuinely believe that it would have been better if, as in the past, the Minister responsible for such an important industry were answerable at all times, thus enabling all Members of Parliament from the Province to have immediate contact with him on the Floor of the House. However, I have no doubt that the Minister who will answer will take up those matters and I trust that there will be close consultation throughout his period in office.
Money has been allocated for the Omagh flood defences, yet no moneys have been allocated to the Castlederg flood defences. The people there have endured an intolerable situation, and the Minister who was previously responsible for agriculture received a delegation on their behalf. It is vital that that matter should be dealt with, and I ask that it be passed to the Minister now responsible for agriculture for immediate action. I trust that it will be resolved—that the money will be spent in Castlederg, which has suffered much.
I listened to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) talking about his constituency, but no-one can deny that the Castlederg area has suffered more than any other rural small town on the verge of the United Kingdom. The matter must be resolved. That will take money, but I trust that the money will be allocated urgently.
With regard to the schedule on the Department of Economic Development, it gives me no joy to tell the House that my constituency has the second highest unemployment in the United Kingdom. That is a tragedy; it ought not to happen. It causes me grave concern, bearing in mind the fact that we are in the middle of a recession. It is true that the recession did not hit the Province at the same time as the rest of the United Kingdom, but our people fear that when the recession has been lifted everywhere else and the rest of the kingdom faces brighter days, Northern Ireland will still be affected. I trust that that will not happen, but unfortunately it has always happened in the past.
I urge the Government to act. Our community needs jobs—it is crying out for them. I trust that Cookstown and the rest of Mid-Ulster will enjoy the necessary financial injection.
I asked the Minister whether a study could be made of the amounts of money spent on industrial development in the Mid-Ulster constituency compared with that spent in other constituencies. Few large industrial enterprises have been directed towards or have invested in Mid-Ulster. We have to rely on the local community, with small industries mushrooming. Local enterprise is healthy, and I respect and give great credit to those who have faced the challenge and moved forward—but we need inward investment. We need to look further afield, and there have been disparities between the finances coming into Mid-Ulster and those coming into other constituencies. Other constituencies are closer to the ports, and we are far away, so it is vital that additional finance is made available for industries that might consider coming to constituencies such as mine.
My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (M r. Ross) spoke about another important problem which

has hit the headlines—the closure of Coats Vyella in the Magherafelt area. The Minister is well aware of the great concern. Some 560 jobs were lost in Magherafelt with just a crack of the finger. Other jobs are in the balance. I ask the Department to ensure that not one stone is left unturned in securing other jobs in the Magherafelt area which are in the balance. If the Department do not take effective measures to help us in creating and keeping jobs in the area, we may find ourselves in an industrial wasteland.
The Magherafelt area and my constituency generally have suffered greatly from the threat of terrorism and from the disaster of terrorism. The terrorism continues to the present. In recent days, the IRA has continued the bombing campaign in my constituency. That is why I hope that every arm of government will move forward together—the security forces with every other arm of government—to ensure that we bring stability and an end to social deprivation for the people of Mid-Ulster.
To allow industry to move forward, we need proper expenditure on energy. There must be a fair deal in the allocation of money for job creation in various areas. We need further help from the Industrial Development Board and from the Local Enterprise Development Unit in job creation.
Recently many jobs were lost at the Tyrone and Fermanagh hospital. Mental patients used to be treated at the hospital, but more patients are now treated outside hospital. There is a beautiful site there which will be left vacant. I ask that the Government take action to ensure that the hospital does not lie vacant and become derelict. I ask that offices should be opened there and Government jobs put in.
It is true that the Government have said recently that they would direct public sector jobs from Belfast to the city of Londonderry. The hospital building in Omagh, the county town of Tyrone, should not be left derelict, but filled with proper public sector jobs and other developments. The site is massive and I do not want to see it left derelict.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that my hon. Friend is concerned about the county town of Omagh. There seems to be a conspiracy to attack the town. There is the whole hospital controversy. I know that my hon. Friend has invited the leaders of the three parties to take part in a deputation on the issue. This large building in the middle of Omagh could be used, yet no push or energy seems to be put into getting tenants for it. Will my hon. Friend reveal to us his anxiety about what is really happening in the Omagh area?

Rev. William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I am deeply concerned about the whole life of the Omagh district and about the rest of the area, including Cookstown, Castlederg and the part of Magherafelt which is in my area. I am dealing with the specific matter of Omagh, which is vital and which is a matter for the Department of Health and Social Services.
The hospital building used to be used for those who were mentally ill. Many employees were then removed from there. We now face a new and serious problem and Omagh certainly needs help. My friend in that area, Councillor Oliver Gibson, prepared an excellent dossier on rural development in and around Omagh. I trust that the Minister will take care to read it. It was certainly


forwarded to his Department. A beautiful document was also prepared on the former Tyrone and Fermanagh hospital. There is an urgent need to find tenants for the building. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North for his assistance in that matter.
I move on to the Department of the Environment. Once again, we face serious problems in the Mid-Ulster constituency. I listened with care to the hon. Member for Belfast, West speaking about the needs of his constituency. I welcome him presenting the case for west Belfast. But I inform the Minister that we shall monitor carefully what happens to Government finances because it is feared that they go in certain directions, to the detriment of other constituencies. I certainly will not stand back and see Government resources pumped into west Belfast in an effort to court the people away from Sinn Fein. I will not allow my constituency, which has been a base for Sinn Fein support in the past, to fall by the wayside. I assure the Minister that there will be strong protest if finances are handled unfairly.
We have all received a document entitled "Department of the Environment: Structural Maintenance of Roads". I have that document before me and I should like to read out part of the review of structural maintenance in Northern Ireland. The report tells us the mileage of roads in each area—Ballymena 2,000 miles; Belfast 1,000 miles; Coleraine 2,000 miles; Craigavon 3,000 miles; Downpatrick almost 2,000 miles; Omagh 4,800 miles.
The report was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 6 February 1992. It itemises the major findings of Dr. Snaith's report of December 1986. It says:
A high percentage of the roads in Northern Ireland were coming into the last quarter of their lives. Over the next few years rapid deterioration would become increasingly evident and, in the Omagh Division, serious deterioration had already occurred.
People usually say that Northern Ireland has more money spent on it than any other area. Let us examine the document. In 1987–88, £12,526 per mile was spent on maintaining trunk roads, excluding motorways, in England and Wales, compared with £3,669 in Northern Ireland. The expenditure on all roads in England and Wales was £3,181 per mile compared with £1,961 in Northern Ireland. That is not some statistic that I have thought up. We are always told that Northern Ireland receives more than the rest of the kingdom. and that money is pumped in. Yet £12,526 per mile was spent on maintaining trunk roads in England and Wales, compared with £3,669 in Northern Ireland. It is up to the Minister to fight for Northern Ireland. It is up to the Minister and the Northern Ireland Office to fight to change that discrepancy.
The report goes on to tell us some interesting facts. It gives the maintenance backlog from 1985 to 1989 and the cost in millions. In the Ballymena area, there was a £7.74 million backlog in 1985; in 1989 it was £2.85 million. In Belfast, the backlog was £13.13 million in 1985 and £5.18 million in 1989. In Coleraine, in 1985 it was £6.69 million, and in 1989 it was £6.10 million. In Craigavon, the backlog was £13.2 million in 1985, and £9.15 million in 1989. In Downpatrick, the backlog was £14.56 million in 1985 and £9.77 million in 1989. In Omagh, the backlog was £22.45 million in 1985, and £25.33 million in 1989.
In the years between 1985 and 1989, the Omagh division was the only area to have an increased maintenance backlog. We are sick, sore and tired of seeing yellow marks on the roads. The Government Department pays an official to put a yellow mark around potholes. but that does not mean that they will be attended to. I could take hon. Members to places where holes have been marked four time but have never been filled. I am not sure whether the Department of the Environment roads service intends to fill the holes with yellow paint, but I can tell the Minister it does not do the trick.
I am telling the House that—on the basis of that Government report—I am sick, sore and tired of being discriminated against, and of my constituents being discriminated against. It is about time things changed.
During the recent election campaign, a member of the Social Democratic Labour party said that the wonderful roads in the Foyle constituency stopped when one reached Mid-Ulster, and he used that against me for political purposes. I ask the Minister to tell me why there are beautiful roads in Foyle, which has an SDLP Member of Parliament when, between 1985 and 1989—during the time that I represented the constituency—there was an increased backlog in Mid-Ulster? The party of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) raised that matter, and the situation must now be changed. I demand that moneys be redirected. If there have to be pull-backs, they certainly should not be in my constituency, because the problems there must be rectified.
I am making a demand and I assure the House that I shall not stop—I shall mention the problem again and again until everyone is sick of it and something is done. I shall not allow the people of Mid-Ulster to be left with nothing but humps, hollows and holes in second-class roads, when other areas have such lovely roads. We shall have justice and it is about time that we saw some action.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister should give an assurance that the shortfall in the hon. Member's constituency has not resulted in contractors not being paid for work done, and that that is not the reason why the potholes have not been filled?

Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I should be interested to hear the Minister's answer.
I am not looking for some magical answer tonight. I would rather have a clear, definite and in-depth answer. I want the Minister to tell me about the money being spent on roads in the Mid-Ulster constituency and to tell me what has been spent in the other 16 constituencies. We shall have a wee bit of equality. We hear a lot of huff and puff about discrimination, and all the rest of it, but it is time for the whole can of worms to be opened and for us to find out what is happening in the Departments. It is about time officials answered for the way in which they have been handing out money or making recommendations about our roads.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a shame that we have been told that it is all right to close the maternity unit in Omagh because it is claimed that the roads are so good that the women can be transported across them to Enniskillen? Is it not a disgrace that, despite the fact that some roads are not in good condition on the Department of the


Environment's own confession, another Department has said that they are so good that one can close the maternity unit in Omagh hospital and take everyone to Enniskillen?

Rev. William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention.
The Department's report speaks for itself and 1 simply present its findings, of which every hon. Member has a copy. The document, which contains the conclusions reached by Dr. Snaith, states:
A high percentage of roads in Northern Ireland were coming into the last quarter of their lives. Over the next few years, rapid deterioration would become increasingly evident and, in the Omagh Division, serious deterioration had already occurred.
The Omagh division has received extra money to deal with its maintenance backlog when every other division has received less. In Omagh. the funds allocated have risen from £22.45 million to £25.33 million. The total backlog is worth £58.38 million, and it is interesting to note that practically half of that sum has been given to the Omagh division. Answers need to be given by the Departments and officials better come up with good ones because we will not stand for any more false claims on the matter. It is about time that we had a fair crack of the whip and a proper allocation of finances. We will not accept anything less.
The Government say that they want to encourage new jobs, and it is disgraceful that Magherafelt bypass, which is urgently needed, has still not been built. We have been waiting for that bypass for years and years. It is necessary, because the roads are chock-a-block as people try to get through. The lack of a bypass is hindering the industrial development of an area that is on the verge of becoming an industrial wasteland.
We are crying out for a bypass in Cookstown, but again the work will he delayed. The second phase, the completion, of the Omagh bypass and the Newtonstewart bypass are also urgently needed. They are all in my constituency. We urgently need money to be spent.
We need to improve the Coagh to Stewartstown road. The environment and the roads in Sion Mills in my constituency are a disgrace after so many years. The Department must give us not only answers and promises, but clear action.
I welcome the provision of the finances for education, but there are two many mobile classrooms in my constituency. Other hon. Members will say that that is true in their constituencies. My constituency has an increasing number of disgruntled and angry students, who wish to continue their further and higher education. Because of the lack of a proper grant system, they are unable to do that. When we consider the amount of money that is spent on students from the Irish Republic and the assistance given to them, we begin to worry about our people from the United Kingdom and their chances of continuing their further and higher education.
I warn the Minister that there is alarm and concern in my constituency about grants. We should he encouraging our young people, especially in Mid-Ulster, where there is so much unemployment, to stay on at school and get the best education that we can possibly give. It is not enough to say that that is what we would like. It costs money to put that into action. Therefore, 1 make a further appeal to the Government tonight.
I must again raise the case of a former teacher in Cookstown, Mr. Crozier. I have raised this matter with

every Minister since I entered this place, but I regret to say that no action has yet been taken. Mr. Crozier believes that he was done a terrible injustice, and I continue to be concerned about the matter as I read letters and documents about it. It is time that the Government agreed to carry out an inquiry into the whole issue. Let all the hooks be opened at an independent inquiry.
We have had the Birmingham Six, and many other cases have been looked at afresh. Mr. Crozier's case should be examined in that light, with openness. It should be investigated, not by those who in the past have had a vested interest, but by an independent inquiry. Will the Government allow an independent inquiry into the case of Mr. Frederick Crozier? I have been dealing with the case for years. I have gone cap in hand to every Minister. I have written hundreds of letters to, among others, the Prime Minister, the heads of the civil service, people in the DPP's office and raised the issue at meetings with the RUC. Let us bring the matter to a conclusion by examining independently the injustice that Mr. Crozier feels he has suffered, and put the case to rest once and for all.
Hon. Members will not be surprised when I raise a health and social services matter that causes me grave concern. I refer to the maternity services at the Tyrone county hospital. Many representations about the matter have been made and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North said, we hope to continue making representations. Of three leaders, I have yet to speak to one, but the other two have agreed to take part in a delegation to the Earl of Arran.
The consultant medical staff at the hospital wholeheartedly support the Government's citizens charter and hope that it will be applied to the maternity services in Omagh. The charter aims to improve quality and make services more responsive to the needs of citizens. That aim is unlikely to succeed if the decision of the western health and social services board to remove the present maternity services from Tyrone county hospital is ratified.
I fully understand the concern of the people of the county town of Omagh about the removal of those services. About 37,000 people have signed a petition urging the retention of their maternity services at that hospital. As they say, that service has existed for years. I ask the House to support the people of the area, and throughout Fermanagh, in ensuring that the existing services are retained.
Tyrone county hospital at present offers a high quality, comprehensive maternity service with a high standard of personal care and attention resulting from being a small rurally based unit serving its own community. The citizens charter says that citizens have an opportunity to influence decisions made on their behalf. The area health council, the body that represents the local citizens, has recommended the maintenance and upgrading of both the Tyrone county and Erne units. Although 37,000 people have signed that petition, thereby making their voices heard, the Western health and social services board has decided to close the Omagh maternity unit.
That is a despicable disgrace. The decision has been taken by one of the quangos that is answerable to no one. The public representatives have been removed from what used to be the boards. Now, each of the members are totally unanswerable to the general public. I deplore that, because it is not democracy but a complete denial of democracy. I demand that we allow democracy to work again for my constituents.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will not my hon. Friend deplore publicly, in this House, how that was done? One hospital against another, one maternity unit against another, and one group of neighbours against another. Then, once the controversy was going between the two hospitals, they decided on the one in Enniskillen. Is not that a disgraceful way to deal with public health, especially with pregnant mothers who are about to bring new life into the world? Is it not a disgrace that hospitals have been set at one another's throats?

Rev. William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for his interjection. I wholeheartedly support what he says.
It is vital that the citizens charter, which makes commitments about quality, responsiveness to need, patients' choice and value for money, should be applied. No sooner was the citizens charter printed—the ink had not even dried—than the first action was taken to deny patients' choice and not give citizens their rights. For example, there is no evidence that the removal of the Omagh hospital maternity service will improve quality. Instead, accessibility to the vast majority of people will be decreased. Responsiveness to need lessens rather than improves. As for value for money, what evaluation of value for money has been made? What costings have been done concerning the proposed change? If any have been done, will the Minister make them available in Hansard so that everyone can scrutinise them?
I regret that the management unit choose to ignore rather than listen to my constituent's cry from the heart. The doctors in my constituency aim to provide the best service possible and strive to improve the standard of medical care available to all our citizens. They support wholeheartedly the retention of services in the Omagh and Erne maternity units.
Many problems deeply worry my constituents. The matters that I have laid before the House deserve attention. For example, the Cookstown adult centre deserves financial aid. Promises have been made to have that adult centre established in Cookstown to cater for the needs of the ever increasing mentally handicapped adult population in the Cookstown area. Promises, promises, promises—but nothing else. It is about time that promises were put into action. I trust that tonight the trend will be turned.

Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford): We must draw the argument to its logical conclusion. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) has exposed the inadequacies of the Western area health hoard. It goes to the crux of the problem in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) rightly said, the board is a quango. Its members arc appointed by a Conservative Minister from England who is not elected by the people of Northern Ireland or answerable to them. None of the members of that quango are answerable to the people of Northern Ireland. The members of that Western health board, like those of other hoards, are interested only in serving the Minister because he appoints them.
How can the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster be surprised that the board makes decisions that are not in the interests of the people whom he represents? He should not be surprised, as that is the natural consequence of the evil system of government that exists in Northern Ireland

today. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me when I say that I have no confidence in the western health board serving the interests of his constituents.

Rev. William McCrea: I join the hon. Gentleman in saying, without equivocation, that I have no confidence in that board. Many of those who were appointed to it were unknown to the Minister. They were Government civil servants who were usually chosen on personal preference. It is strange that they seem to come from one political party which cannot get a Member elected to the House. They are usually political rejects who have stood before the general public and been refused by them. Those are the credentials of many of those who have been appointed by Government Departments.
I do not believe, and nor should the House, that such a system is democratic, and the mother of Parliaments should be ashamed of it. It is about time that power was put back in the hands of the ordinary, good people of Ulster. That is why my hon. Friends and their parties are seeking a devolved Government in Northern Ireland to attempt to bring back power. If that were to happen, an electric shock should run through a number of people who have looked to civil servants and Government Departments to be assured of their fancy positions. I must make it abundantly clear that the day when the skids go under the heels of some of the civil servants who are party to the system may not be far off. They may have to answer for some of the sins of the past that they have committed on the hard-pressed people of Northern Ireland.
It seems that it was not enough to insult the people of Northern Ireland by taking away their Parliament and robbing them of democracy in every sense of the word. they replaced officials with 'yes' people who carry out Government wishes and philosophy. It is an absolute disgrace that they would even rob a mother about to hear her child of the right to give birth in her local district under the excellent service that has stood the test of time. I defy any hon. Member to say that Tyron county hospital and its maternity services have not stood the test of time and are willing to face the challenge of the future. I guarantee that they will do so with great determination and skill.

Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East): I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) on his maiden speech. If he continues to represent his electorate as he did tonight. I have no doubt that west Belfast will have a constitutional politician in the House for many years.
I welcome the opportunity provided by this debate to raise a number of issues affecting my constituency and the rest of Northern Ireland. As has been said, this is a wide-ranging debate.
We are voting money to the Department of Agriculture. I urge the Minister with responsibility for agriculture to consider the problems throughout the Province arising from the cost to farmers of disposing of fallen animals. A real threat to public health is caused by the irresponsible dumping of carcases and by unsatisfactory burial sites on farms. I pay tribute to the vast majority of farmers who accept responsibility for the cost of the disposal of their fallen animals, but I regret that too often carcases end up on roadsides and even on our beaches, so the cost of disposal is transferred from the polluter to the ratepayer.
Is the Department of Agriculture monitoring this problem; and has the Minister any new proposals to


overcome the problem of the unlawful disposal of dead animals? Must we rely solely on local detection and the prosecution of offenders who are caught?
The fishing season is well under way in Northern Ireland, as is silage-making throughout the Province, with its attendant risk of the seepage of effluent into water courses and rivers. Many visitors are attracted by opportunities to fish our many rivers and lakes, where angling skills are rewarded by fine catches. We have clean rivers and lakes, teeming with trout and salmon, and they continue to attract tourists from Great Britain and overseas.
We must closely supervise fishing at all times, however, to ensure that there is no poaching that would prevent salmon from getting upriver to spawn, and to ensure the early detection of pollution which could result in large fish kills.
I also hope that there are adequate controls on and supervision of salmon netting offshore, to protect the salmon that ought to go upriver. That in turn will maintain stocks.
The money allocated to the Department of Economic Development includes provision for the administrative costs of the executive of the Industrial Development Board. Does the Minister agree that it would be unwise to blame the IDB solely for the small number of new inward investment projects attracted to Northern Ireland in 1991–92? Does he accept that each Member of Parliament representing a Northern Ireland constituency is anxious to assist the IDB to become more successful in the years ahead?
With a record low number of new jobs from incoming projects last year—apart from the 350 office jobs provided by the public sector—surely this is the time for the IDB to offer opportunities for greater participation in attracting inward investment to the elected representatives of the constitutional parties in this House. Does the Minister agree that evidence of cross-party encouragement and support for IDB efforts can only contribute to achieving more success in future? I am satisfied that all right hon. and hon. Members would readily and jointly assist IDB officers if invited to promote investment in Northern Ireland.
We all want full employment right across the community—with the proviso that appointments are made on merit. Is the Minister satisfied that the policy of the Government, the Department of Economic Development, the IDB and the Local Enterprise Development Unit, which is designed to increase competitiveness among Northern Ireland companies, is effectively securing jobs and providing sound conditions for expansion while also attracting outside companies that wish to invest in Northern Ireland?
I regret to have to say that some would-be investors, potential IDB and LEDU clients, from Great Britain and overseas have not been impressed in the past with some officials. A potential LEDU client told me that he had got his business off the ground successfully without any assistance from LEDU—in his own words, "no thanks to LEDU". A potential IDB client concluded that the procedures that IDB follows are so time-consuming and frustrating that they create a never-ending process. All he needs is an offer which can compete with other regions in Europe.
LEDU and IDB officials cannot go on suspecting that each new overseas investor who comes forward is yet

another De Lorean. Entrepreneurs are real risk takers. Some have positively chosen to locate in Northern Ireland because of the excellence of its industrial relations, the high quality of its education and skills training provision, the excellent reputation of its universities and the high quality of the work being done in our further education colleges. In addition, they have been impressed by the friendliness of the people of Northern Ireland, their willingness to do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay and, above all—a matter of great regret—the almost unlimited pool of skilled labour that is available.
What recent evaluation has been carried out to determine whether incentives presently on offer compare favourably with those on offer throughout the United Kingdom and the EC? I take this opportunity to record my congratulations on and appreciation of the success enjoyed by F. G. Wilson Engineering Ltd. of Newtownabbey in my constituency. It is the largest manufacturer of diesel engine generating plant in Europe. The company has provided steady and increasing employment for 500 people in the Newtownabbey area. The prospect of the company's expansion on the recently acquired GEC Alsthom site in Larne will be welcomed by the skilled work force there awaiting employment opportunity. It will bring fresh hope to families who have suffered loss of earnings and income since GEC Alsthom closed its factory after having been the main employer locally for approximately 30 years.
I hope that IDB will respond quickly to F. G, Wilson's proposals for expansion in Larne and that the company can continue to achieve export success, with new products and increased sales even exceeding past achievements, which won the Queen's award for export in 1989 and 1991.
I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will tell the House whether, despite today's announcment of job losses, the recession in Northern Ireland has started to bottom out and whether he has any good reason to believe at this early stage in his new post that prospects for job creation will be brighter.
Has any recent consideration been given to rationalisation of the functions presently carried out by IDB and LEDU, and does the Minister foresee those bodies continuing to operate independently in future?
Northern Ireland has a major resource in lignite. If the Government would give the go-ahead for the exploitation and utilisation of that major resource, it would be one of the quickest ways of providing industry with cheaper electricity which, in itself, would be a major attraction to new investors.
In regard to the Department of the Environment's vote 1 for expenditure on roads, I thank the Minister for keeping me informed about safety measures and further investigations relating to the collapsed salt mines near Carrickfergus. However, a number of my constituents and others who have been inconvenienced by the closure of the B58 new line road request that priority be given to the realignment of the B58. Will the Minister tell us the likely start date for the scheme?
Let me also record my appreciation, and that of my constituents, for the support given by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and others to my efforts to have the A8 upgraded. I do not wish to miss any opportunity to make it clear to the House, and to a wider audience, that there has been disgraceful political


chicanery—direct political involvement—in matters affecting my constituency, no doubt in connection with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Greater priority has been given to expenditure on road development between Newry and Dublin, where an average of only 6,000 vehicles travel daily, than to spending on the A8 Belfast-Larne road, which has an average daily traffic flow of 13,850 vehicles but which has not been mentioned in regard to upgrading.
We see that road as the natural Euro-route, and the natural corridor between Northern Ireland and Scotland. We will not be calmed by statements from Secretaries of State for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Transport that nothing is being done to reduce the importance of the Larne-Stranraer corridor. The very fact that millions of pounds are being poured into a route which cannot be justified but which may smooth Anglo-Irish relations could in itself threaten the success and continued employment of my constituents in the port of Larne.
I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the fact that the Belfast-Lame A8 road has more than double the traffic use of the Newry-Dublin route, and that he will demonstrate his support for our desire for the recognition of the Belfast-Larne-Stranraer corridor as a vital Euro-route. I hope that it will be upgraded at the earliest opportunity, and that the Minister will give an undertaking to make representations to the European Community for funding.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision to give priority to other road schemes leading to Dublin via the border at Newry, and to take away the moneys previously allocated to the Larne road and other major road schemes in the Belfast suburbs, was a political decision by the present Northern Ireland Office Ministers? Regrettably, it is supported by the chairman of the Ulster bank, Mr. George Quigley—formerly a senior civil servant in the Northern Ireland Office—who is using his position in the bank to give political support to the reallocation of road funds. The Government are also being encouraged by the CBI.
Does my hon. Friend realise that those of us in Northern Ireland who have invested money in business and industry and have created jobs—95 per cent. of the real business men, not those in the CBI who have not invested one penny from their own pockets—want to give priority to the roadway to Larne rather than to the border road, which is used by only 5 per cent. of our trade in the Province?

Mr. Beggs: That was a helpful intervention, and I agree with every word of it. I am sure that the Minister must recognise that, in time, improvement to the Newry-Dublin road would be acceptable to Unionists. However, it cannot be justified now, especially not at the expense of other feeder routes into the Belfast-Larne road. Those of my constituents who bank with the Ulster bank will be interested in the fact that Mr. Quigley is not promoting what we perceive to be in the best interests of east Antrim and Northern Ireland. Perhaps they will communicate in a positive way what they think of Mr. Quigley's action to date.
The Government recently decided that acute services would be taken from my local hospital in Larne. I am still satisfied that the case for the retention of acute services

there was sustainable and, had we not had a quango making decisions we might have been able to retain those services. It adds insult to injury when no extra money is to be used to improve the tortuous and dangerous Belfast-Larne road that the additional traffic will be forced to use it when patients decide to travel to the new Antrim hospital or to Belfast hospitals for their acute services. More patients and ambulances will be forced on to that road, as will the relatives who go to visit patients outside the Larne area.
The regeneration of the Glenarm village on the north Antrim coast will come about only when the Government provide the necessary funding to relocate the old Whiting mill and limestone works inland, away from the coast road to a more appropriate quarry site behind the village. I urge the Minister to find time to appreciate the excellent views on the Antrim coast road and to see for himself the blot on the landscape on the very edge of Glenarm village. I urge him to support strongly a bid for the necessary funding to give a kick start to the regeneration of that village. I am sure that, as soon as public money goes in, private money will follow. That will provide employment for a mixed community where there is presently high unemployment with little prospect of improvement because the village has been neglected for far too long.
I could raise many issues about the moneys voted to education, but I bring to the attention of the House the plight of 18 pupils who have been awarded grade 2 and who ask the Minister to ensure that sympathetic consideration is given to having them placed in the school of their first preference—Larne grammar school.
The former Northern Ireland Education Minister raised expectations that parental choice would be recognised. Parents and teachers were given every reason to expect that a grade 2 would ensure a place in a grammar school for those 18 youngsters, but they have been extremely disappointed. Despite their great success, in their post-primary careers, they will be denied places because the enrolment number at Larne grammar school is inadequate to meet the needs of this year's intake. It may not be possible for those well above average youngsters to find a grammar school place.
Larne grammar is a voluntary school with a good record and a cross-community intake. We do not have a state-controlled grammar school within 10 miles. If approval were given, it would be possible, with local co-operation, to accommodate all the pupils. A precedent has been set, because a few years ago a school was required to provide accommodation for an entire class group. I hope that, exceptionally, the Minister will urgently examine the need to increase the enrolment number at Larne grammar school this year. It would be the most sensible response from the Department of Education and would satisfy the reasonable expectations of parents and their children.
North Eastern education and library board has given top priority to replacing an exhausted aluminium structured primary school with new permanent accommodation. I ask the Minister to urge his Department to ensure that a start is made in this financial year in replacing Abbotscross primary school. The total sums in Department of Education votes 1, 2 and 3 will be inadequate to enable the demands made on schools by the Education Reform Act 1988 to be met. The Minister must bid for additional expenditure on schools to ensure that, at


primary and post-primary level, the necessary accommodation and equipment is in place to secure the delivery of the national curriculum.
I hope that the report on further education, which I have not seen but which I understand was released today, will permit an early decision to be made about capital expenditure on Newtownabbey college of further education. Only this week, the North Eastern education and library board considered requests from primary and post-primary schools for additional accommodation. In total, requests were made for 61 mobile and specialist classrooms. Of those 61 requests, about 10 per cent. were met. If that problem is multiplied across the other boards in Northern Ireland and account is taken of the needs of the Catholic maintained schools, there is clearly a tremendous shortfall. Ministers should take note and set out to meet those needs.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Tonight we heard the maiden speech of the newly elected Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), and I am glad that at last west Belfast has a representative who comes to the House, takes the oath of allegiance and speaks for the people of west Belfast. I have a personal interest because I represent west Belfast in another place, my wife represented part of it for eight years in the city council and my daughter continues to represent part of it. Therefore, I have something in common with the new Member. I am sure that he knows that he broke every rule of a maiden speech by being very controversial. As I did the same, I appreciate his attitude. I am sure that we shall look forward to his contributions and the opportunity to "have it out" on the Floor of the House as good democrats should.
I shall deal especially with Northern Ireland's health service but first, in case the Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins), has an idea that I have something against the Minister responsible for agriculture, I wish to make it perfectly clear that I know that the Earl of Arran's title comes not from Scotland but from off the Donegal coast. At least his name has a relationship with Ulster.
I have nothing against the noble Lord, but it is still my conviction that, as agriculture is the largest industry in Northern Ireland, there should be a person in House to answer directly for it. That has always been the view of farmers, and I repeat it to the House tonight. However, I do not want the Minister to set me at odds with the noble Lord, because I shall have to do business with him for the farming community and I want to keep on the right side of him if I can—or also on the left side.
I am sure that the Minister knows that Northern Ireland has a problem with feedstuffs for poultry and with the results of the new heat treatment for the elimination of disease among poultry. He may also know that there is now a great health hazard as a result of the heat treatment and that the increase in the number of flies—like the flies of Egypt—around the places where the poultry is raised has become a menace. There has been a court case, and there are serious troubles among poultry raisers in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Minister will at least be able to hint at how the Department will handle the problem.
I shall not go further into that subject, because I must also mention the closure of small rural schools. There is a

rural school on Torr head, the most beautiful part of the north Antrim coast. It is a maintained school belonging to the Roman Catholic Church. An attempt is being made to close it. I am fighting as hard as I can, along with every member of the parish including the parish priest, to keep it open. The tragedy is that those above the parish priest are taking sides against the parish to close the school. So you see, Madam Speaker, the situation I am in at the moment. I make an appeal for the man of Macedonia—the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates)—to come over and help us. I hope that he will keep that in mind when he is at his desk.
An old people's home in my constituency—Wilson house, in Broughshane—is under threat of closure. There are many other old people's homes in the Province, and the newly elected hon. Member for Belfast, West, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and I joined together in a great rally at the city hall. That, too, was presided over by a lady, Madam Speaker, and we made some progress. I trust that we shall make greater progress under your authority, and that the Minister will take heed of my plea on behalf of old people.
The nation's morality and ethical standing depend on how it treats its old people. If we do not treat the elderly well, we ourselves will not be well treated—some Ministers are becoming elderly themselves, and they should look to the days ahead. The Minister of State, the hon. Member for East Hampshire, points at me, but he too will he old one day; his hair will go grey and his teeth will fall out. He will need support and help in his old age. So I make a plea for the Government to be caring to the elderly in Northern Ireland.
The fight for the provision of comprehensive health care services for the people of Northern Ireland is a battle that all the elected representatives have to fight. We mean to win that battle. Government reports have been published, as have proposals from the repugnant quango systems which have been foisted on the people of Northern Ireland. They have now gone to town against our health care system, and Government health boards in Northern Ireland have developed a new civil service speak, which uses terms such as "streamlining", "rationalisation of services", "new frameworks" and "review of provision". All that talk really means cuts in services. The House must realise that we cannot afford such a catastrophe in Northern Ireland. The present proposals affect not just one parliamentary constituency but every parliamentary constituency.
Here is an issue on which all Northern Ireland Members in the House tonight agree. Please listen to us. The Government say that they will not listen to us when we disagree, so I hope that they will start to listen to us when we agree. Perhaps we should agree more often, which would help the Government.
The Province deserves the best: it deserves equal treatment and equal rights within the United Kingdom. We are not asking for a special case to be made for us. Over the past 30 years, Northern Ireland has made great advances in the provision of health care, and it would be a scandal for the Government now systematically to dismantle those advances and to turn back the hands of the clock by robbing Northern Ireland of its fundamental right to health care services based not on ability to pay but on need. I believe that health services should be based on need, not on the ability to pay.
Last week, Northern Ireland was stunned by the proposals that emerged from the Eastern health and social services board. They highlighted the Government's agenda to deplete the provision for the regions of Ulster and to centralise acute services, leaving rural areas exposed to incomplete services. The purpose of the Government's proposals is to save money. A complete and caring health service cannot be based only on a financial agenda.
I passed through one of the greatest tragedies that has occurred in the past few days. A busload of my Bannside Democratic Unionist branch members had a terrible crash in which five people were killed and more than 40 injured. The diligence, dedication and sacrifice of all the emergency services were brought home to me. There were policemen, Ulster Defence Regiment men, men from other regiments of the British Army, firemen, nurses, doctors and ambulance men.
The tragedy was that, if the crash had happened some time ago, Whiteabbey hospital or the Moyle hospital in Larne could have handled the emergency. The worst injured had to be taken to Belfast City hospital, to the Royal Victoria hospital and as far away as Ulster hospital. When I stood in Whiteabbey and saw some of the serious cases having to be carried into an ambulance again and taken away to other areas, I realised what was happening to our health service. The realisation came home to my heart as never before.
We need to keep acute services in the local areas. I am not with some of the consultants in this matter. They want to live in Belfast and to raise and educate their families there. They want to travel just a few miles to other hospitals and then to go back to Belfast at night. In the old days, a consultant lived in the area that he served. I remember that, when I was a boy, there were well respected and revered consultants in the town of Ballymena. They lived there, their families were educated there and they were part of the community. Many of the new consultants do not want to be part of the community. They want to do it all in Belfast and not have to go out to other places. The general practitioners must be commended for their dedication to their local areas. The GPs are all for the retention of acute services in those areas.
Last week, the Eastern health and social services board announced that it would close six hospitals. Some 750 beds in the area will close and up to 8,000 nursing staff will eventually lose their jobs. The Government propose to close Newtownards, Bangor, Belvoir Park, Down, Forster Green and Musgrave Park. What a list of hospitals to be closed! The six hospitals provide specialist care units for the whole community. Belvoir Park has a specialist cancer unit and an infectious diseases unit which will now be destroyed. That width of experience will come under the axe of health service cuts. There are warnings that two other hospitals that serve the greater Belfast area, Lagan Valley and the Belvoir, may be closed. The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) told us what has happened to the Larne hospital. Altogether, eight hospitals in Northern Ireland will be closed. The proposal shows a wholesale disregard for people's needs.
The three hospitals that will now serve the Ards peninsula are the Royal Victoria, Belfast City and Ulster, yet the catchment area of Strangford—the right hon.

Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) is present this evening and knows about this as I do, because I represent the area in the European Parliament—is one of the fastest growing areas in Northern Ireland. In 1981, it had a population of 122,000. Today, it has a population of almost 131,000. Yet the board proposes to close the hospital there. What in the name of goodness has come into these quangos and boards that makes them propose to do such a terrible thing to the hospital provision in Northern Ireland?

Mr. John D. Taylor: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments, but should he be surprised at the decision taken by the Eastern health and social services board? We must remember that it is a quango appointed by a Conservative Minister and that it is simply carrying out the policies of Northern Ireland Office Ministers. Some 15 per cent. of the beds that were provided by the last Ulster Unionist Government have been abolished by the Northern Ireland Office.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when constituencies such as North Down and Strangford have 70,000 electors each and the population of Belfast constituencies is falling day by day—each of them is down to almost 50,000 electors—it is an outrage that, simply to placate the Minister who appoints its members, a quango is closing down hospitals outside Belfast in areas which have the most rapidly growing population in Northern Ireland?
North Down and Strangford have some of the worst roads. If someone had an accident in upper Ards near Portaferry, it would take almost an hour to transfer that patient to Belfast City hospital or the Royal Victoria hospital. That is an outrage, and I hope that all hon. Members will join us in North Down and Strangford in opposing the quango's dictatorial decisions.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Of course I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I agree that the health boards are out of touch with the people. The way in which members are appointed is ridiculous. Anyone who stands as an Alliance candidate and is defeated will be appointed to one of the quangos.
As far as I know, not one Democratic Unionist party member has been appointed to any health hoard in Northern Ireland. All those who are on a board were appointed because they were previously councillors. There is perhaps one Democratic Unionist member of the police authority, but there are none on the health boards. I believe that the Ulster Unionists have the same trouble. The leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party has told me that his party has the same trouble. The members of the boards are out of touch with the political parties and how people vote.
I have had a letter from a leading consultant in Ards, Mr. Ferris. He said:
There has been a great increase in the number of families of the security forces as Newtownards is a 'relatively safe area'. The Police Federation encourages their members to come to this area partly because of the safety and because there is less intimidation.
Yet the hospital services are being cut.
The figures for operations in Ards are excellent. The hospitals are not being closed because they do not do their job. They do their job. In some cases, the hospitals in Ards have better figures for operations than even the Royal Victoria, Belfast City or Ulster hospitals. The hospitals in


Ards do more operations than Down and the neighbouring gynaecological units combined, yet the hospitals in Ards come under the axe.
The waiting lists will not go away. They will increase. The leader of the Ulster Unionist party and I had a meeting with the previous Secretary of State. We put before him the facts about people awaiting heart operations in Northern Ireland. At the present waiting rate, they will die. Some of those people will never have a heart operation. For example, I know of a young business man from Ballymoney. The Minister with responsibility for health and social services, who is not here tonight, did everything to get that young man the necessary heart operation, but he almost died. The Minister showed me a card with the young man's name and a telephone number on it and he told me, "Every morning I ring and cry out for that young man to have art operation, Ian." If that is the way that we have to plead for our people to have heart operations, where will it all end? 
I know that a new specialist unit has been set up, but even with that unit working overtime, it is not biting into the waiting list, because more people are joining it. Northern Ireland has the highest rate of heart disease in Europe. In recognition of that fact, the Government appointed a new heart specialist team to complement the work already being carried out in that important area, and the work being carried out at the Royal hospital. However, that team will only maintain the present waiting list and will not be able to reduce it. Two more specialist teams are required and money for them must be made available. It is a matter of life and death. The waiting lists are a scandal and corrective measures a necessity.
I know of people who have had to wait four years for heart surgery and I know how their health has deteriorated in that time. It is a matter of life and death. The most recent figures available in the "Register General Quarterly Returns for Northern Ireland" for 1990 show that the number of heart disease deaths in the Greater Belfast area was: Ards, 165; Belfast, 922; Castlereagh, 188; Down, 215; Lisburn, 218; and North Down, 200—making a total of 1,908. The figures for other heart-related disease deaths were: Ards, 22; Belfast 178; Castlereagh, 25; Down, 21; Lisburn, 28; and North Down, 22—making a total of 296. The grand total is 2,204. The figures show that there were 2,204 fatalities because of heart disease, 1,100 of them in Belfast. The other 1,104 people would have had to travel a great distance to receive acute services. Belfast requires another specialist team to cope with the problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) also faces difficulties, because the Tyrone hospital has to cope with heart disease, there.
The north Antrim people in Ballymena in my constituency feel strongly about the removal of their cardiac unit. We all helped with work, bequests and voluntary subscriptions to give the best cardiac unit to the Waveney hospital. What have they done with it? They have taken it away to Antrim, but Antrim did not pay for it, the Ballymena people did. The cardiac ambulance service ought to be maintained at Ballymena. If the cardiac unit is based in Antrim, people from Portglenone, at the periphery of north Antrim, will have to travel 50 miles for treatment. Those from Cushendall will face a round trip of 64 miles, while those from Cushendun will face a round trip of 74 miles. Those figures are scandalous, and the Government must wake up to the problem.
I am well aware of the new hospital programme for north Antrim. The hon. Members for Belfast, South and for Belfast, West and I campaigned together for that new hospital. Eventually, we won our fight and we were told that a brand new hospital would be built in the Coleraine-Ballymoney area. However, the trouble is that the Department is no longer keeping to that building plan. It is running down the old hospitals, but it is not running up the new one. It has now been decided to move the Ballymoney surgical unit, casualty service and the accident and emergency service—traditional to the town—by 30 June, which is not far away.
That unjust and undemocratic decision, which will incur enormous cost, has aroused much bad feeling, especially as that move will have a short-term effect only— seven years—because the new Causeway hospital is set to open in 1999. The whole idea is crazy. The new hospital campaign group, the north-eastern sub-division of the British Medical Association, the combined consultant medical staff committee of the Coleraine and Ballymoney hospitals, the Ballymoney borough council, the Ballymoney new hospital support group, the steering group—which represents the three local councils and the support groups of Ballymoney, Ballycastle and Coleraine—the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the National Union of Public Employees have all expressed opposition to the rationalisation proposals.
The opposition to such so-called rationalisation rests on three arguments. First, people are concerned that those proposals would provide this Government, or any future Government, with the pretext for delaying the building of the new Causeway hospital. Many circumstances will change between now and the stipulated date when the first patients will be admitted. Secondly, existing logistical problems at Coleraine hospital should be overcome—not least the difficulty in admitting surgical patients in the first place. Thirdly, the board and its officers have failed to hold meaningful discussions with those most affected by the board's far-reaching decisions.
I hope that the Minister responsible for hospitals and his colleagues will take my remarks to heart. The board refers continually to a stepping-stone approach, but those stones are too far apart, and we shall fall into a river of destruction.
What does the board think of the good surgeons of Route hospital? Its surgical unit not only has the best day-case figures for the northern area, but it admits more than 40 per cent. of all the surgical cases in Coleraine, Ballymoney and the Moyle district. In 1990–91, more than 40 per cent. of all major and intermediate surgical operations in the district were carried out in the Route hospital theatres, despite a reduced workload due to illnesses. It has now been decided to phase out the work of that hospital.
The hospitals of north Antrim are being penalised for being too efficient. One will be penalised if one works hard and does a good job. There is much at stake. The painful upheaval and expense that will result from the so-called rationalisation does not seem justified, especially as short-term benefits will result, and it should not be permitted.
Whatever else may be said about the decision, the manner in which it has been taken is an indictment of those who hold power without accountability and it will be long remembered by the people. There must be accountability.


In that context, let us remember that we do not even have a Select Committee here to examine Northern Ireland issues. Not one Northern Ireland Member is on the Public Accounts Committee to ask important questions that need to be asked. Why is the Northern Ireland Office not scrutinised? I believe it is because the civil servants are making the running and do not want to have to answer.
I used to be chairman of a public accounts committee in another place. Ministers and civil servants would sweat when they came to be questioned on their stewardship. I urge the Government to give an account of their stewardship. They should be proposing the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee so that they can be cross-examined. It is vital that we have such a body, and a Public Accounts Committee.
When this matter was raised at a certain confidential meeting, we found that the people most against a Select Committee were the civil servants. I hope that it will not be long before a Northern Ireland Select Committee is formed, and it will give me great delight to be a member of it. I will then have the opportunity to cross-examine some of the civil servants. We will see how civil they are when they are put in the vice.
A whole district in Ballymoney is insisting that, instead of indulging in incredible interim expenditure, the Department of Health and the Northern health and social services board should act within the terms of the recommendations of the House. We must take into account the record of prevarication on the part of the Northern board since 1977 and demand that the new Causeway hospital is completed by 1997.
I wish to pay tribute to Mr. Robb, even though he and I are politically as far apart as heaven and hell, and that is a long way.

Mr. Stott: Which are you in?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I leave that to the hon. Gentleman's imagination. Knowing the twisted way in which he thinks, he will expect me to be going down—[Interruption.]—but he is wrong. Nor will I be in purgatory.
Mr. Robb has done a superb job, as everyone, irrespective of religion, agrees. He happens to be a Protestant; he is a Protestant republican. He owes his conversion to republicanism to the newly elected hon. Member for Belfast, West. I once heard him giving his testimony as a convert at a meeting. Everybody in the community owes Mr. Robb the highest praise for the way in which he has worked for the people and put his life, in sickness, at risk to help the people of the area. I pay that tribute to him with all my heart, soul and mind.
I plead with the Government to look again at provision for the elderly. I shall not dwell on the point because I know that the hon. Member for Belfast, South wishes to speak, and I want him to take part in the debate. I think of homes such as Wilson house, Throne hospital, Mourne hospital in Newcastle, Wilmot house and the Molone View day centre, all of which are facing closure.
The plans to close them are based purely on finance rather than on humanity. The people in those places have a fundamental right to community care. I sat at one home beside an old ex-service man—there were rows of elderly people—and he told me, "This is my home. Where will I go from here when the doors close?" I urge the

Government to heed the appeal of the elderly. Do not ruin the last days of their rest and peace. If such places must be run down, do it with charity and love and not at the behest of a quango.
It is sad to see how the health boards in the Omagh area want to set Members of Parliament against one another. Members of Parliament must fight for hospitals in their areas. They would be worth nothing if they did not. Why is Enniskillen hospital in confrontation with Omagh hospital, dividing and polarising the community? They are fighting for the right of women to have their maternity needs met in their area. What they are trying to do is inhuman.
There is a rape in our health services, based on a promise of cost efficiency; but cost-effective measures and book-balancing are being carried out while ignoring the harsh realities of human life. Closures and cuts to save money are not the answer to our social and economic ills. Let me issue a word of warning: the economy of health should be the economy of well-being. The converse is the economy of disease.
Rationalisation has been argued for on the ground of economy. Wholesale disregard for the people is not the way forward. Incorporating them in plans for the health service and putting them first are the only ways to provide comprehensive health care for all. I want the Minister to listen and act. A cry crosses the religious, political, class and age divides: "Stop what you are doing. Please give heed to the voice of the people and save our hospitals and elderly care centres."

Rev. Martin Smyth: I shall take up a point that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made—a plea for a Select Committee on Northern Ireland—but turn it round in another direction. A Select Committee of this House issued a report on maternity provision and included Northern Ireland in it.
We asked the Department to withdraw an out-dated circular that was reissued recently. We also suggested that, before it continues to run down maternity services in rural areas, it should examine what is happening in, for example, Brecon and Radnor and the Bath authority. We received a report of a meeting of the Western health board, and the general manager dismissed the report as of no importance. I believe that he was showing disrespect to the House, because the Government must respond to that report in the House before a mere general manager can discard it as having no authority.
I join others in welcoming the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) and congratulating him on his maiden speech. I do so for various reasons. First, it will take some work off me. I remember, shortly after being elected to this House, sitting in the advice centre where Robert Bradford was murdered. A person came in with his disabled boy and said, "Mr. Smyth, I am neither one of your constituents nor one of your flock, but I would not go to the one who is there now, and I am not too sure that I would have gone to the one who let him in." He came to me to argue the case of a lad born with deformity, for whom officialdom was trying to discard responsibility. I am glad that the hon. Member for Belfast, West will take up such issues in future.
Secondly, I welcome the hon. Gentleman because, interestingly, the hon. Member called to speak after his


maiden speech, the hon. Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder) once represented Belfast, West. When he was being selected as the Unionist candidate, my father nominated him. As a boy who was born in west Belfast, I now represent a part of south Belfast that was originally west Belfast, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House.
I join the hon. Member for Antrim, North in saying that the next time that the hon. Member for Belfast, West speaks, there might be more of a reaction in the House. The hon. Member for Belfast, West said that there were no job opportunities in west Belfast. There may not be enough, but it is a calumny to suggest that jobs have not been provided in the past 10 years. Strathearn Audio and those industries and services that are now in south Belfast, were actually provided by the former Unionist Administration of Northern Ireland to create jobs in west Belfast. It is important to maintain a sense of balance when making charges.
I thank the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for his earlier response, but I am looking forward to receiving the Secretary of State's letter. I was at the launch of the next stage of the 'Making Belfast Work' campaign. Admittedly, I was unable to stay to hear the Secretary of State's speech, but I received the brochure. South Belfast was not mentioned in relation to the £26,000 that was allocated.
The fact that south Belfast people take the initiative and do things for themselves has been used to move them to other districts. St. George's community work began in Sandy Row, moved to south Belfast and has now been redirected to east Belfast. The federation youth training was started by professionals. An accountant finally resigned from the chair because of the way that the organisation was being treated. Men were volunteering their time to try to equip young people in that district who are now moving away to east Belfast. Those involved with Ormeau youth enterprises cross the spectrum of society and have been pushed around for more than four years. They are placed in any areas of need.
I do not doubt that some money has been invested in south Belfast, but when reference is made to the youth team working in the district it should be remembered that one section is on loan from west Belfast and another section has no relevance to south Belfast. The Taughmonagh district is heavily deprived and is still depressed. Donegall avenue is a lovely old street, in which virtually every house is derelict.
Work is being carried out to improve the Ormeau road, lower Ravenhill and other districts. It is time that officials stopped judging south Belfast by Queen's university, Stranmillis training college and the Upper Malone. There are regions of tremendous need right on the margins.
I understand what the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) meant when he suggested that the IDB officials should not be entirely blamed for lack of development. However, when vote 1 of the Department of Economic Development mentions the cost of the IDB executive, I question whether we are receiving value for money. The hon. Member for Antrim, East and I went to the far east in 1983 and blazed a trail for IDB.
It helped us tremendously: it gave us 100 large brochures to carry. We opened doors. Journalists came to Belfast. When the IDB opened an office in one of these countries, it did not even have the courtesy to advise the journalists of that, even though they had come to Belfast

to discover what was happening in Northern Ireland for themselves. It was only when one of them returned to Northern Ireland that he found out.
So I am talking about a degree of insensitivity. The organisation seems to want to direct matters itself instead of using the networks which exist to be developed for the good of the community.
I recognise the case for co-operation with the Industrial Development Authority in road shows. It is tragic that it appears that the IDA is attracting more inward investment to the Republic. We are competing with the other regions of the United Kingdom for inward investment, and competing with our hands tied behind our backs. Anyone who wants to invest in the Republic can do so. Anyone who wants to invest in the United Kingdom can do so. The problem lies in the question mark over Northern Ireland: will Northern Ireland still be in the United Kingdom in five or 10 years' time, given all the shilly-shallying that has been going on? Our political instability is one of the reasons why we are not attracting the inward investment that we might if we went at it properly.
Why is the Department still pussy-footing over residents' parking? That has been on the cards for years. People in London and elsewhere have the right to park their cars in the streets where they live. The Lisburn, Malone and Stranmillis roads in my constituency are densely populated. There is nowhere to park. The university population abandon their cars in these streets. It was interesting that the Department of the Environment moved quickly enough when it put in parking meters—that was cost-effective. Neither we nor the residents argued that they should not pay for their permits—

Mr. Trimble: I am familiar with the problem in my hon. Friend's constituency—especially in the university and Stranmillis area. I assure him that similar—although perhaps not as great—problems exist in numerous other places, including the town of Portadown in my constituency. There is a great need for the sort of residents' parking scheme to which he refers.

Rev. Martin Smyth: My hon. Friend underlines my point.
Under vote 4, I want to deal with planning. I discovered many years ago that television companies in the United States showed devasted areas of Belfast as the work of the IRA. Apart from the fact that some of them are the legacy of Adolf Hitler, the rest of them were the gift of developers who ravaged the city, scattering its population to its four corners. They should have got on with building. I discovered lately that one of the greatest culprits was the road services branch of the Department of the Environment.
Developers in the neighbouring constituency of Strangford have been waiting for more than two years for a decision. When the Minister replies, will he tell us whether the Department has reached a decision? I was told that it would do so within the first two weeks of June. That period has now passed. I understand that the Commission made a decision in September 1991 and it is now June 1992. What is the reason for the continual delay? 
A developer in the University road area took years to obtain planning permission. Ultimately, he had to go to a tribunal. When I approached the then Minister about the case, he told me that he could not interfere because an appeal was pending. When I asked the civil servant


involved about the delay, which was resulting in soaring expenses, he told me that it would have been better if the building had been rehabilitated. The developer was being asked not only to maintain the building's facade, which he had promised to do, but to restore a wrecked interior, putting in cornices which had not existed for years. It transpired that that civil servant had not even examined the place when he was asked to do so. It is the cry of many that our officials should have a bit more sense of responsibility, especially when people are investing money in the well-being of the community.
I understand that the Under-Secretary is aware that, under the new education guidelines, a place has been allocated to physical education and swimming. The Department has decided that the Finaghy primary school is over-endowed with land, so there must be a disposal of property. The board sought planning permission for housing but it was unsuccessful. It said that it did so simply to test the land's value, but I am convinced that, if planning permission for housing had been obtained, the land would have been sold. It now says that the Department is pressing it to dispose of the property because it is surplus to requirements.
That land is an open space with a pitch and a swimming pool which fell into disuse in 1987. Belfast council's leisure unit is prepared to take the property over and develop it, but instead of passing it over to the Department of the Environment, under which Belfast council would work at a reasonable or nominal price to provide facilities to serve 10 schools and the community at large, the Department is pressing it to put the property on the open market so that it can be bought by some speculator who hopes to carry out the work.
With regard to vote 1 for the Department of Health and Social Services, I reiterate the concern over the closure of the home. I also question the planning in the Eastern health and social services board. I have referred to the Western board. I have had occasion to raise with the chairman of the Eastern board certain events in the Green Park unit. Having received the usual flannel that officials prepare for a chairman to sign, I discovered that, instead of dealing with the problem, a witch hunt is on to discover who is giving me the information. I believe that it is the board's job to ensure that things are done properly.
Let me give an example. In January 1991, after three public advertisements had been placed, a director of nursing services was appointed to start work on 1 April. The terms of employment stated that over five years she would receive a 20 per cent. salary increase if her performance was satisfactory. Four days after starting work, she was told by the unit manager, "We have changed our plans here. A single director of nursing services will cover Belvoir and Musgrave park." 
The director of nursing services was shattered. Where was the forward planning? Three months after her appointment, the management did not know that only one director would be needed, and they appointed someone from London. How can management expect loyalty, devotion and service from the work force if they treat people like that? The person concerned was well qualified. I have known her since I walked the corridors in Musgrave

park 40 years ago as an assistant chaplain, when she was a trainee nurse. I believe that the time has come for greater responsibility and accountability.
I asked a parliamentary question about the number of firms that had been taken off tender lists and subsequently restored. The Minister replied:
One firm was temporarily removed from the health and personal social services select list of tenderers for the market testing of support services. This firm was reinstated within the past two months and my noble friend does not think it would be proper to disclose details of the firm concerned."— [Official Report, 21 May 1992; Vol. 208, c. 243.]
Why was that firm restored, other than to fulfil a contract that it had been given? It was guilty of a ploy to get rid of workers in the health service and in the cleansing department of the hospital concerned. It had been engaged to do that work, and was employing 80 per cent. of the work force in one place who were already in receipt of social security payments. Comments have been made about low sentences in the civil courts. There seems to be no detriment to firms that have been off the list for two months and are then restored.
Finally, let me ask the Minister to tell us why the money was transferred from the Larne line and the other priority road schemes to the Dublin route. A single protest is our only way of calling attention to the importance of accountability.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Robert Atkins): The tone of much of the debate has been typical of the warmth and friendship that I have encountered in the short time that I have held my present post. I am sure that my colleagues would agree with me about the response that we have received from a wide variety of people in Northern Ireland.
It would be wrong for me to begin my speech without paying public tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), whose achievements were considerable when he held the responsibilities that I now hold. I see my opposite number, the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), nodding in agreement. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will know of the commitment and interest shown by my hon. Friend. Following his translation to the Board of Trade, that commitment and interest will still be extremely helpful to Northern Ireland in relation to such matters as inward investment.
This has been an excellent debate. I think that I can speak for all hon. Members in saying that it has been an enormous pleasure to be able, for the first time since 1983, I believe, to refer across the Floor of the House to the hon. Member who represents west Belfast—the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron). We have not had the opportunity to do that for a long time. Whatever one's political views may be, the defeat of Adams in the general election was a major and significant achievement for parliamentary democracy.
That defeat produced the new Member who is respected and highly regarded throughout the city for his role as a local general practitioner, which is an added bonus. Whatever might be our views and differences, his maiden speech made clear his knowledge of his constituency and the fact that he has roots in his community. He spoke with force and feeling and made it plain that he will be an excellent representative—a full-blown parliamentary


representative—of west Belfast. We know that west Belfast, like the rest of the Province, needs a parliamentary democrat to represent its views.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West said that he wanted the Government to help. 1 can give him the unequivocal assurance that the Government will help him in west Belfast as they will the other 17 Northern Ireland Members of this place. We shall, of course, have our differences and arguments, and in that I include the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). That is only right and proper in a democracy. I hope that hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies will recognise that the team of Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office will do its best to deal with the concerns and problems of Northern Ireland with as much dedication as have previous teams. There may be differences, but we shall do our best.
My responsibilities for the Departments of Economic Development and for the Environment give me a unique opportunity to help conserve and enhance the natural environment within Northern Ireland and to use that environment as an important foundation in seeking to strengthen the economy through the various policies that are now being implemented. These ministerial roles complement one another perfectly and are, in my experience, indivisible.
I am convinced of the many inherent advantages which Northern Ireland has and which we must use to the full. It is seen from outside as a largely rural and lightly industrialised area, not spoiled by the more traditional heavy manufacturing activities. There is an excellent road network and an excellent supply of good, clean water. Some of my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the south-east of England would be inordinately jealous of Northern Ireland's water supply. Northern Ireland has a landscape of great variety and great natural beauty., some of which I have had the opportunity to see. It is largely unspoiled. In today's world, these are substantial assets. Everyone who is involved in promoting Northern Ireland must maximise the opportunities that such a clean and green environment provides.
There will, of course, be occasions when the protectors of the environment and the demands of industry might appear to be in conflict. Where these circumstances arise, there needs to be a careful balance drawn between the interests. We are determined to protect the exceptional environment, but that protection must not in itself be unduly restrictive, nor erect unnecessary hurdles that will inhibit economic expansion. On the other hand, the business and industrial community must recognise that it has duties and responsibilities towards the entire community, and so must take appropriate action, for example, to control production processes, waste emissions and cleanliness and tidiness in its sites. I shall deal with particular sites in due course.
The greater awareness of the environment gives us a real opportunity in our wider economic development policies. As we already have an image as an area with a clean and fresh environment, we can strengthen the image by making it a common theme in all our promotional work, both at Government and industry levels. It will mean Northern Ireland industry in general focusing on making its products more environmentally friendly.
I am convinced that firms that are more sensitive to consumer preferences in this area will gain a market advantage. Industry should also think seriously about how

to make its processes more environmentally friendly. This will become increasingly important in firms' relationships both with their local communities and with their customers, and it can also have cost advantages.
A green approach would mean seeking to establish Northern Ireland in the eyes of the world as a centre of excellence in industrial and environmental matters. If we concentrate on raising our standards, finding solutions and adopting best practice throughout industry, we shall develop knowledge and expertise which we can market to others and which can draw to Northern Ireland industries that need high standards and expertise on their doorstep. That is not an easy or short-term approach and it will require effort not only from industry in Northern Ireland but from everyone whose actions impact on the environment. That approach can offer Northern Ireland a competitive edge in the world of the 1990s and beyond, and I am determined to take it forward.
A number of issues arose in the debate, as I would have expected. Given the strictures that have been uttered about my predecessor waffling on minor points and not dealing with the substance of debates, I shall endeavour to cover as much ground as I can, given the constraints of time. Otherwise, I shall write to hon. Members about the matters that are causing them concern and endeavour to pursue them in greater detail.
The hon. Member for Wigan, who, as an old colleague across the greensward, I am delighted to have shadowing me—as least for a short time—raised a number of matters that I hope to deal with as generalities. However, he particularly asked about structural funds from the EC. Northern Ireland's allocation from the structural funds was disappointing, but Bruce Millan has confirmed that it was our prosperity relative to other objective 1 regions that accounted for the size of the Northern Ireland share.
Our GDP per head is higher than the normal limit for objective 1 status, but we have been assured by Mr. Millan that Northern Ireland's allocation was no reflection on the quality or presentation of our regional development plan. It is satisfying to note that the areas selected for Community support accorded well with the Government's development priorities. The hon. Gentleman's point is well taken and I undertake to continue to ensure that Northern Ireland receives a fair share of funds from the EC.
It was a great pleasure for every hon. Member to hear my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Sir J. Kilfedder), particularly as he has now joined the mythical round table. Hon. Members will be pleased to congratulate him on that well-deserved honour. He has been a Member for many years and his work on behalf of his constituents is well known. He talked about a number of issues. One issue that amused the House, although I know that it was serious, was the problem about Geddis farm in Helen's Bay. He spoke so fluently about it—almost mellifluously—that that not only the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) but others will make a beeline to see exactly what is causing such an eyesore.
The Department of the Environment is fully aware of local concern on the issue and has been involved in enforcement action for 10 years. Some successful prosecutions have been brought and compliance with enforcement notices secured. The Department is carrying out a review of the situation and is examining a number of options to solve the problem.
That does not tell the hon. Gentleman anything that he did not know already. I assure him that I shall have a look


[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office]
at the site for myself and perhaps have a conversation with him to see whether we can do more to ensure that what he describes as a dump does not stay that way for very much longer.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) spoke about a number of matters, largely to do with roads and transportation but not exclusively so. As a former Minister for Roads and Traffic, I felt a sense of déjà vu about some of his comments. Hon. Members always want more roads but attack the Government for building more roads and putting concrete all over the place. The problem is almost insoluble. I assure the hon. Gentleman that when I was Minister for Roads and Traffic I tried to switch the balance towards maintenance, particularly maintenance and improvements that save lives and reduce accidents.
I am currently considering road maintenance and I am conscious of the concerns expressed, although I must tell the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends that to travel on some of the roads in Northern Ireland as I have done recently, with the sun shining, is an eye-opener. I wished only that I had an open car and a pretty girl by my side—[Interruption.]—my wife, I hasten to add. The roads were delightful and empty. There was no traffic, except perhaps on the odd occasion when I came across a vehicle checkpoint. Generally, the roads were very good and they complement the countryside in many respects. I think that hon. Members of all parties in Northern Ireland would agree with that.
Nevertheless, the serious point about maintenance is well taken. Although I cannot undertake to wave a magic wand immediately, I am considering the problem and I hope that we can switch the balance a little so that we make a more significant impact on road maintenance than has been the case in the past.
The general point made about new roads came as no surprise. Every hon. Member who spoke mentioned roads in one form or another—how this or that road is needed. In the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State who is responsible for money in Northern Ireland, I should perhaps say that we shall make a firm claim for as much money as possible for new roads, but he will be sure to have a view—undoubtedly backed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or at least by the Chief Secretary—about how much funding can be allocated. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend will have heard what has been said. If he has not, I shall ensure that he hears.
Let me mention one important road in particular, the Newry bypass. It has been a continuing objective to improve and develop the main road links to the Belfast and Larne ports in the interests of Northern Ireland's economy. One of the first meetings that I attended after becoming a Minister was with a number of senior distinguished business men, all of whom said that the Newry bypass was one of the most important things that they wanted. It has been achieved progressively as funds and the demands of competing priorities permit. The improvement of the road system in the Newry area is a long-standing objective.
The A8 Belfast to Larne road is a good quality road, capable of carrying current and foreseeable traffic volumes. However, the upgrading of the single carriageway central section of the route is being considered as a

mid-term objective. As I said, the general point about roads is well taken, and I shall endeavour to reflect hon. Members' concerns when the issues come up for discussion.
In a distinguished contribution that lasted for a considerable time and covered almost every part of his constituency, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) mentioned several matters, including agriculture. I can assure him that my noble Friend whose responsibility it is and who—as I said in a brief intervention—is ably represented by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who will speak learnedly on such matters having had relevant experience when he held a former portfolio, is only too well aware of the worries about angel dust and is doing what he can to effect stringent controls. We all agree that it is a serious matter which must be dealt with.
Incidentally, my noble Friend is duty Minister in Northern Ireland at the moment. Had he not been so, he would undoubtedly have been listening to the debate. I hope that hon. Members will accept that he will get a full report on that and other matters that fall to him, not least those relating to health.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster mentioned the specific problem of the maternity unit at the Tyrone County hospital. As he said, it is undoubtedly a major issue for local people, and I assure them and their representatives that my noble Friend will examine the arguments very carefully. He has recently visited both hospitals and heard at first hand the views of the local communities. He has told them that he hopes to announce his decision by the end of June. I shall draw to his attention the general health issues that have been raised, and he will appreciate hon. Members' concerns.
I know that local communities are concerned when a health and social service board proposes the closure or change of use of facilities and services. But I hope that everyone will agree that if boards are to continue to provide the highest quality services, changes are inevitable. I know that boards take seriously their responsibility to consult their local communities when changes are contemplated—and when change is major and controversial, it must, of course, come to the responsible Minister for endorsement or otherwise. I assure the House unequivocally that my noble Friend takes that responsibility very seriously.
Decisions to close or change the use of facilities will never be taken lightly, and the views of local communities—and especially those of hon. Members speaking forcefully—will, of course, always be given the most careful consideration.

Rev. Martin Smyth: For the guidance of hon. Members from Northern Ireland and of the people concerned, will the Minister tell us how he defines consultation?

Mr. Atkins: The fact that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have raised the matter means that I shall report seriously to my noble Friend about their concerns—I am sure that he will recognise them. Doubtless he will make his decisions and his anxieties known to hon. Members in due course. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman was making.
Matters involving the Industrial Development Board have been raised. I am conscious of the fact that the board


has had a difficult year. We all know that we have been through a recession, and 1 assure the House that the IDB and the Local Enterprise Development Unit, whether under the present chairman or the new chairman, are only too well aware of hon. Member's concerns and of those of other people in Northern Ireland, and are taking them to heart.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) asked about residential parking. I am told that no legal power exists in Northern Ireland to permit the introduction of residents' parking schemes, but we are in the process of considering how one could be introduced. It would require an enabling power in primary legislation. Again, the point is well taken. I was astonished that there was no such power, and we are considering the idea closely.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State assures me that he would be more than happy to meet the hon. Member for Belfast, South about Finaghy primary school. No doubt that can be arranged—behind the Chair or elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke with knowledge and, understandably, with some emotion about the dreadful crash a week or so ago involving members of his community and his church—I believe that they were supporters and constituents. It was a dreadful tragedy, and my fellow Minister of State, who was the duty Minister at the time, went to the hospital and publicly congratulated all those involved—as I did myself. We offer our sympathy for the dreadful accident, and ask the hon. Gentleman to convey that sympathy to his friends, supporters and constituents. An investigation is being carried out into what happened, and what we can learn from it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that in the spirit in which it is rendered.
In conclusion, I emphasise again the challenges which now exist with regard both to the environment and to economic development policies, and to their interrelationship. The priorities for all concerned about the environment will be to conserve and enhance the natural environment; to develop greater interest in and awareness of our historic heritage; and to protect public health. The latter includes the condition of inland and tidal waters —concerning which, incidentally, Northern Ireland's record is extremely good, with all 16 beaches meeting EC standards.

Mr. Trimble: rose—

Mr. Atkins: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way, but time is running out.
Among our other priorities will be the improvement of air quality, especially emissions from domestic and industrial sources.
With that green approach to economic development, our priorities for industry will be to promote the Northern Ireland green image in a sustained and systematic way—which is especially important for the food and tourism industries—to develop greener products, which will meet or anticipate consumer preferences; to develop cleaner processes and use that as a marketing point; to adapt processes to use fewer materials and to create less waste; and to use energy much more efficiently in all production activities.
I assure the House, and everyone in Northern Ireland, as represented by their Members of Parliament, that the

new team in Stormont—especially as it includes my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has been there for a while—is committed to use all the parliamentary resources at our disposal to use the unique opportunity which is still open to everyone in Northern Ireland to take advantage of the environmental position and current economic development to ensure that Northern Ireland has a real future—not only as a peripheral part of Europe but as a central part of the United Kingdom. That commitment is there for all to see.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 87, Noes 9.

Division No. 37]
[11.29 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Jenkin, Bernard


Ancram, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Arbuthnot, James
Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Ashby, David
Kirkhope, Timothy


Atkins, Robert
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Bates, Michael
Legg, Barry


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lidington, David


Booth, Hartley
Lightbown, David


Bowis, John
Luff, Peter


Brandreth, Gyles
MacKay, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Maitland, Lady Olga


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Malone, Gerald


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Mates, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Merchant, Piers


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Neubert, Sir Michael


Clappison, James
Richards, Rod


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Congdon, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Spink, Dr Robert


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Sproat, Iain


Dover, Den
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Duncan, Alan
Stephen, Michael


Elletson, Harold
Sweeney, Walter


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Sykes, John


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Thomason, Roy


Fabricant, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Forth, Eric
Thurnham, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Trend, Michael


Gallie, Phil
Twinn, Dr Ian


Gillan, Ms Cheryl
Watts, John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Whittingdale, John


Hague, William
Widdecombe, Ann


Hanley, Jeremy
Wilkinson, John


Hawksley, Warren
Willetts, David


Hayes, Jerry
Wood, Timothy


Heald, Oliver
Yeo, Tim


Heathcoat-Amory, David



Hendry, Charles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Horam, John
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Mr. Tim Boswell.


Hunter, Andrew





NOES


Beggs, Roy
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Taylor, Rt Hon D. (Strangford)


McCrea, Rev William



Maginnis, Ken
Tellers for the Noes:


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. William Ross and


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. David Trimble.


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 2nd June, be approved.

Trust Hospitals (London)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Mr. Tom Cox: This debate centres on the funding of national health service hospitals, especially those under trust status in London and those shortly to gain such status. My hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) will hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that we may have a wide-ranging debate on health matters in London.
In my constituency, St. George's hospital, Tooting, is seeking trust status. There is deep concern among local people about what that will mean for the health of their community.
The evidence shows that many trust hospitals have funding problems, which affect services, staffing and morale. We are aware that changes are made primarily to balance the accounts. To realise that, one need go no further than the comment made to the Select Committee on Health in January by Duncan Nichol, the chief executive of the NHS, who said that the "key duty" of trusts is to break even. That is what causes deep concern in London.
An inquiry on London health care, headed by Sir Bernard Tomlinson, is taking place. He has already been left in no doubt by various organisations in London about the problems that the national health service faces: problems of funding, waiting lists, low staff morale, the need for an improvement in primary health care, and for closer collaboration between hospitals and local authorities, which leaves much to be desired in many parts of London. Those are only some of our many concerns.
Obviously, better management can help but the overriding issue is, and will be, the question of how services are to be improved and that will depend overwhelmingly on funding. We have heard on many occasions that even when trusts sell their services on the open market—which will not be easy—there must be some financial input from the Government. We want the Minister to tell us what that will be. We are aware that earlier this year, in the run-up to the general election, a lot of financial funding seemed to be available —waiting lists were reduced and salaries were increased—but we now realise that things have changed considerably.
Money is more difficult to obtain via Government funding and many hon. Members must have read the report in the Observer business section last week entitled
Cabinet row over impact of public spending cuts.
It went on to say:
A major Cabinet row is developing over Treasury insistence on dramatic cuts in public spending".
Based on what we already know, that report could be true.
I saw on the news tonight that the Luton and Dunstable hospital trust, which was established last year, has announced that it is cutting 95 jobs. That is on top of the 16 job losses that it announced last week. So, in a matter of a week, 100 jobs have been lost. Such decisions are causing great concern.
We might be told that such job losses will not hurt hospital services, but we know that that is untrue. I have collected more than a dozen press cuttings that highlight existing problems—for example:
NHS trust 'mishandled' injured baby case.

Two others, which relate to the Guys and Lewisham trust, state:
Heart patients wait as budget runs out one month early.
and
Four heart patients 'died for lack of money'".
We have sought the debate to express our deep concerns to the Minister and to the Government in particular.
I do not expect the Minister to reply to the specific issue that I intend to raise, but I have a duty to alert him to the concerns of my constituents and myself about the appointment of the chairperson to the St. George's hospital trust. Two people, who are well known to the public are in running for that post. However, the front runner is a Member of the Upper House, who is well known in Parliament and outside. I do not intend to mention his name, but many of us are absolutely opposed to his appointment.
That gentleman already holds a number of financial directorships, and one wonders how he can find time to do justice to them all. The local people would view his appointment as chairperson of the trust with contempt. Given his current financial responsibilities, they would consider that he had been appointed to balance the books only, rather than to improve local NHS services as a result of trust status. We are opposed to his appointment.
I accept that the Minister may be unable to address that specific issue, but if that gentleman is appointed, I shall make all relevant correspondence, which I have kept confidential, public. I shall leave the matter at that, because I want my hon. Friends to have an opportunity to take part in the debate.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for giving me time in his debate. All London Members are extremely concerned about the future of the capital's hospitals. Devasting cuts have recently been disclosed at University College hospital and Bart's, and the threat of closure continues to hang over the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital, which is extremely famous, is used by many women and is held in high regard. Much public anxiety exists over the future of that hospital, which offers a unique health care service.
All who care about London and Londoners must be anxious about the state of health provision in the capital, as my hon. Friend ably pointed out. The Government have pressed on relentlessly, encouraging hospitals to opt out, regardless of local feeling and opposition. When ballots of staff have been conducted, and public opinion canvassed, the overwhelming view has generally been to reject opt-out, as in the case of the North Middlesex hospital. But the Government have gone ahead regardless of the views of those who work in the service and the people who use it.
Of the two principal hospitals that served my constituency, one is planning to become a trust hospital and the other became a trust a year ago. The Whittington hospital is planning to opt out and has produced glossy brochures and smart newspaper advertisements telling the people that there will be greater accountability, faster response times, a more efficient service and higher calibre staff. But local residents, staff and patients have all told me that that is unlikely to happen and that they do not want a trust hospital. There is also a large question mark over its financial viability.
But even if we were generous enough to give the Whittington the benefit of the doubt and question what local people have told us, we must consider what has happened at the neighbouring hospital that serves my constituency, the North Middlesex, which has opted out. The picture there is extremely grim. It became a trust just over a year ago. Is it locally accountable? While meetings of public bodies are usually open to the public, meetings of the trust board are held in private, so local people and representatives of the community health council and the press cannot attend.
Last week the hospital announced cuts of £1.7 million, and I gather that from last April the general manager of the trust was having almost daily meetings with the Department of Health in an effort to deal with problems that were arising. To enable the latest cuts to be met, the hospital has announced that, instead of two meals a day, patients recovering—and therefore needing nourishing meals—will get one meal and a snack. After 6.30 there will be no evening drinks. Is that how we should run our more caring and more efficient health service? It may he an efficient way to save money, but it is hardly the way to help patients recuperate. It is another example of trusts putting financial savings before patient care.
It has been announced that about 50 jobs will go. My excellent local campaigning newspaper, The Hornsey Journal, confirms that redundancies will occur among auxiliary nurses and nurses in medical wards and casualty departments. I recently questioned the Secretary of State for Health about casualty facilities in my constituency and she asserted that excellent services were being provided. It is also reported that a surgical ward with 26 beds and half of another ward will be closed at the North Middlesex hospital. That is not the way to attract higher calibre staff, but it undermines the confidence and skill of those professionals whom we admire so much.
My constituents are understandably anxious about health care in the community. In April this year, the North-East Thames region had the worst record in England for waiting lists of more than two years. The promises that we were given about trust hospitals have been broken and there are financial crises at both Whittington and North Middlesex hospitals.
I urge the Government to act urgently to ensure that patients' lives are not put at risk for the sake of unrelenting commercialism.

Ms. Tessa Jowell: I, too, welcome this debate and thank my hon. Friend for Tooting (Mr. Cox) for allowing me to share his time.
We desperately need urgent action to deal with the looming crisis facing London hospitals. The optimistic propaganda from Ministers about the future of London hospitals simply does not square with the experience of constituents who visit my weekly surgery and the many who write to me.
The problem is London's dual role in meeting Londoners' health needs and also securing as a regional and national resource in providing specialist treatment for people from many parts of the country. The issue is how those two roles can be properly reconciled.
I wish to describe how those two responsibilities impact on the local hospitals used by my constituents—King's College and Dulwich hospitals. My hon. Friend the

Member for Peckham (Mrs. Harman), who for many years—since before I arrived in the House—has sought to find solutions to the problem, will share my concerns.
King's College hospital is classed as one of London's major teaching hospitals. It is unusual compared with other London teaching hospitals because seven out of every 10 people treated at the hospital live in the Camberwell health authority area, which my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham and I represent. Three out of every 10 people travel from other parts of the country or from Europe to benefit from the highly specialised forms of treatment that are provided. It is a world centre for liver transplants and for specialities like the treatment of diabetic gangrene of the foot. King's College hospital is also unusual in that, because it is old and desperately in need of refurbishment, its unit costs are lower than those of other teaching hospitals.
I remind hon. Members that the area served by the hospital is described by health care statisticians as one of high morbidity. That means that, for instance, three times as many babies die before they are a year old in Camberwell as in the Prime Minister's constituency of Huntingdon.
This year, King's will have to save yet another £7.8 million as it prepares to become an opted-out trust with effect from 1 April next year. As part of the cuts programme, 120 beds have been closed in the past 18 months.
The brunt of those cuts has been borne, not by the national and regional specialties, but by the services for local people—my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham, particularly by the elderly.
The problems arising from the shortage of beds is evidenced almost every day by the queues of patients who have been through the casualty department and are waiting on trollies for a bed to become available. Too often, elderly people have to be admitted, not because they need hospital care, but because they cannot be looked after at home, as the community services have been cut. That shows the perversity of the sorry saga. The casualty department that was built to treat 30,000 patients a year, now regularly treats in excess of 80,000 a year.
We all celebrate King's status as a world-class hospital, but the health care of my constituents will be vulnerable if the Government allow market forces, not the health care needs of local people, to plan London's health services. It is particularly perverse that the hospital that can give the chance of life to someone, from wherever in the world, who needs a liver transplant, cannot admit an elderly lady who lives down the road and has broken her arm, without subjecting her to a long wait in one of its corridors before a bed becomes free.
I hope that the Minister shares my serious worry about these matters and that he will give answers that I can convey to my constituents.

The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on his good fortune in securing this Adjournment debate and on the way in which he introduced it. I also thank the hon. Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) for their contribution, and acknowledge the presence on the Opposition Front Bench


of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman). All three of them will realise that they have taken a substantial amount of the time available for the debate, so my ability to respond to it has been curtailed. Therefore, I hope that they will not attribute the lack of specificity of my reply to any discourtesy.
The hon. Member for Tooting started by drawing attention to what he believed were the funding problems of trust hospitals and the issue of resources. Without much ado, I shall now address that worry, which was also reflected in the speeches of the other two hon. Members. It is important to understand that, taking the number of acute beds per thousand of the population as an index, in inner London the average is 4.1 and in England it is 2.5. Therefore, in terms of the provision of beds, inner London's quota is well in excess of the national average.
The figure for health revenue expenditure per thousand of the population in inner London is £445, and the average in England is £233. Those are pre-reform figures, but the position has not changed much in the past couple of years. Therefore, contrary to the impression given by the hon. Member for Tooting, the amount of resources spent in inner London is substantially greater than that available in the rest of the country.
I have another piece of information, the relevance of which I believe the hon. Gentleman will understand. The average cost per episode—Department of Health jargon for case—in inner London is £790. The figure for all acute cases in England is £546. The hon. Gentleman will see, therefore, that considerable extra resources are being put into London and that the cost of health care in London is higher than it is in the rest of the country.
The hon. Member for Tooting said that London finds money hard to come by. I remind him that we are in the same financial year as when the general election took place. He will know that the health budget this year rose by 5 per cent. in real terms.
I have noted the hon. Gentleman's point about the possible appointment of a chairman to the potential trust in which he takes a particular interest. If hon. Members have views about the names submitted for such an appointment, I shall be happy to receive them and to take them into account in the consultation process before deciding who should be chairman of a trust. I hope that they find that helpful.
NHS trusts are a central part of the reform programme set out in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. The whole purpose behind the creation of NHS trusts is to improve the quality of health care and to produce benefits to patients. Since the Act came into force in 1990, 156 hospitals and units have become NHS trusts. Now, in the third year, there have been 151 applications so far.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green suggested that this process is driven by the Government.

No so. It reflects the fact that the professional and managerial staff in the NHS are increasingly supporting the Government's reforms.
After the third wave, most NHS health care will be provided to patients through NHS trusts, with up to two thirds of eligible units established as trusts.
We have heard stories this evening of the kind that we often hear. The stories which I can contribute are based not on newspaper accounts but on the facts. NHS trusts in London increased their acute and general activity by more than 11 per cent. in 1991–92 compared with the previous year. The Royal London and associated hospitals NHS trust and the Royal National throat, nose and ear hospital NHS trust each increased its activity by more than 20 per cent.
The Royal National orthopaedic hospital has been able to reopen more than 40 beds which the district had previously had to close. It would have been slightly more convincing if the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green had balanced what she had to say about trusts with the record of non-trust hospitals, which experienced difficulties, financial problems and bed closures long before trusts were ever thought of.
As an example of the improvements that trusts have been able to make, the North Middlesex hospital will open a fourth theatre next month and is planning a major redevelopment of the A and E department. Mount Vernon hospital is purchasing several new pieces of equipment worth £4 million; these include a linear accelerator and two new magnetic resonance imaging scanners. The Central Middlesex hospital is now installing a magnetic resonance imaging scanner in a joint venture with a private company. The Royal Free Hampstead NHS trust has decreased the number of people waiting over a year for general surgery from 560 to just 18. At Guy's and Lewisham NHS trust, the number of patients waiting more than a year for treatment has come down from 2,200 in March 1991 to 680.
I do not suggest that trusts do not have continuing problems to deal with and to overcome, but it does them, and consequently the health care of the people of London, no service to suggest that trusts are inherently evil, non-productive and bad, and that the old system was great, good and marvellous. That was not the story that we heard in the days when trusts did not exist.
I deeply regret that I cannot deal with health care provision in London, but I have no more time. However, I have no doubt that, as we move through the year and when we receive the Tomlinson report, the matter will come before the House on a number of occasions and I look forward to future debates on it, not least because it is important that we should address the problems of London in a way that will protect the health care of its citizens while at the same time freeing resources to be spent in the other Thames regions and around the country.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.